This paper looks at how the "balance" between lives, livelihoods and other concerns was talked about in four main newspapers in the UK, between March 2020 and March 2021, in assessing the UK government's performance. Different arguments were made for opposite conclusions, favouring either strict and prolonged lockdowns or, on the contrary, a speedy exit from lockdown and a resumption of normal life. From the point of view of argumentation theory, the empirical data suggests that what is being balanced or (...) weighed together in pro/con argumentation by two opposite parties are not as much the costs and benefits of one's own proposal, but the costs of one proposal against the costs of its alternative (a "cost-cost", rather than a "cost-benefit" analysis). Rather than defending their own proposal by arguing that the benefits outweigh the costs, each side is criticizing the opponent's proposal by claiming that the costs of their proposal are more unacceptable than the costs of their own. The "best" decision in choosing among two proposals with negative consequences is the one that avoids the proposal with the worse overall consequences (and thus minimizes the maximum possible loss). This implicit minimax strategy was applied in radically different ways, depending on how the consequences were assessed by various parties to the debate (including the government), which consequences were considered less unacceptable (or became less unacceptable as the situation evolved). Different lines of action were defended in light of their ability to avoid unacceptable costs (negative consequences), i.e. their ability to withstand criticism in light of their potential costs. The debate over lockdown illustrated an interesting type of pro/con argument, in which all the intended "benefits" were in fact avoided "costs". It also placed in clear contrast a medical/epidemiological and a political perspective on the best course of action, stressing a government's obligation to balance together a much wider range of responsibilities and concerns. (shrink)

From a critical rationalist perspective, I look at a fragment of the debate on shale gas exploration in the UK in order to make a proposal on the nature and representation of “conductive” argumentation, arguing it should not be viewed as a single argument, but in relation to deliberation as genre. There is no “conductive argumentation”, only various possible outcomes of deliberation, seen as critical testing of (alternative) proposals.

The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...) reasons, for deductive arguments, e.g., semantic tableaux are suggested. (shrink)