Abstract
This conference embraces a view of design as a sociable process that describes designers as conversationalists, who interact dynamically with a diverse public. Unfortunately, this sociable model of design is challenged by a world in which public discourse is increasingly polarized and divided. “Argumentation” once described an orderly process of providing thoughtful reasons for claims, to promote mutual understanding and respect. But “argumentation” has degenerated into a hostile process, in which adversaries simply shout without listening. When society is divided and polarized, it is much more difficult to advance design as a sociable process. This poster revives the traditional understanding of “constructive argumentation,” which can support design as a sociable process. It makes three points: 1) Models of argumentation are, in fact, products of design. By viewing argumentation as a process that we can design, we are able to use principles of design to improve our communication. 2) A critically important feature in the design of constructive argumentation is the “rebuttal,” which points out the exceptions to an argument. By critically examining the structure and function of the rebuttal, we can design a more respectful, empathetic form of rebuttal, one that supports collaborative dialogue. 3) It is vital to put this design structure into practice, to give agency to the idea of a well-designed rebuttal. Drawing upon decades of experience in running university-level debates, I give practical examples of how well-designed rebuttals can improve public discourse.
Presenters
David SchmidtDirector, Patrick J. Waide Center for Applied Ethics, Fairfield University, Connecticut, United States
Details
Presentation Type
Theme
KEYWORDS
Argumentation, Reasoning, Rebuttal, Discourse
