In October 2004, there was a national uproar in the Netherlands about a proposal of Nijmegen’s town council GroenLinksParty to ban the so-called SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicles), usually four-wheel driven off-road vehicles of generous proportions, from Nijmegen’s town centre by making it impossible for them to park there. Led by Mr. Van Eck, spokesman for the GroenLinks Party, Nijmegen’s municipal executive was called upon to amend local parking by-laws so that a parking ban would be enforced from now on in Nijmegen so that these – in the eyes of the GroenLinksParty – environmental polluting, gas-guzzling, and for pedestrians and cyclists, perilous vehicles (also popularly known as “Chelsea tractors,” i.e. cars wider than 1.85 m) would henceforth no longer be allowed to park in Nijmegen. The motion, unknown in the Dutch political set-up, was passed by the town council, but Nijmegen’s municipal executive had misgivings about the juridical feasibility and casted the motion aside. In letters sent to readers’ columns in national newspapers reactions to the proposal were furious:
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The fallacies that are characteristic for the confrontation stage and that therefore fall within the scope of the freedom rule (for example, ad hominemfallacies) can, in practice, also enter into the discussion later, for example in the middle of the argumentation stage.
- 2.
A large number of alternative explanations will, in practice, be excluded by the chosen design. In all six studies use was made of a repeated measurement design, in combination with a multiple message design.
- 3.
In the statistical testing of the differences in reasonableness between fallacious and non-fallacious discussion moves each of the three types of fallacies (that in a study each were represented by 12 dialogue fragments) were contrasted with the 12 non-fallacious fragments, thereby leaving aside the type of discussion domain. All (quasi-) F’s appeared significant, even after applying the Bonferonni criterion (however there is one notable exception: The tu quoque fallacy and the ad misericordiam-I study were found just as reasonable as the non-fallacious moves. This finding was one of the reasons why the study concerned was replicated).
-
Ad hominem study: direct attack: F(1,34) = 134.38; ES = 0.47; indirect attack: F(1,27) = 34.78; ES = 0.21; tu quoque: F(1,26) = 11.78; ES = 0.09.
-
Ad baculum-phys study: ad baculum: F(1,33) = 92.23; ES = 0.57; direct attack: F(1,40) = 98.02; ES = 0.52; tu quoque: F(1,29) = 13.17; ES = 0.14.
-
Ad baculum-dir study: ad baculum: F(1,24) = 20.20; ES = 0.29; direct attack: F(1,25) = 31.35; ES = 0.36; tu quoque: F(1,25) = 6.06; ES = 0.09.
-
Ad misericordiam-I study: direct attack: F(1,41) = 26.81; ES = 0.24; ad misericordiam: F(1,41) = 9.84; ES = 0.13; tu quoque: F(1,33) = <1.
-
Ad misericordiam-II study: direct attack: F(1,32) = 80.02; ES = 0.41; ad misericordiam: F(1,28) = 32.09; ES = 0.29; tu quoque: F(1,28) = 12.20; ES = 0.09.
-
Declaring a standpoint taboo: F(1,37) = 82.02; ES = 0.46; direct attack: F(1,36) = 121.39; ES = 0.49; tu quoque: F(1,28) = 10.29; ES = 0.08.
-
Declaring a standpoint sacrosanct: F(1,32) = 94.71; ES = 0.52; direct attack: F(1,42) = 104.75; ES = 0.43; tu quoque: F(1,26) = 10.37; ES = 0.11.
-
- 4.
For the ad hominemstudy and the two ad baculumstudies an a priori test was the most logical choice and not an a posteriori test. After all, in these three studies specific hypotheses were set up about the order of ranking in reasonableness of the three types of fallacies studied. These hypotheses were impossible in the ad misericordiam study and in the study into declaring a standpoint taboo. Due to reasons of consistency, all the contrasts in Table 4.2 were therefore carried out a posteriori.
- 5.
After all not all dialogue fragments from the previous ad hominem study were equally suitable. There were dialogue fragments where the respondents could not take a clear standpoint because for example they were too specific or they expressed a purely personal opinion; these were replaced by fragments in which controversial issues came up for discussion where, in principle, a respondent has an opinion.
- 6.
Concerning the polder debate discussed here with its special emphasis on the agreement of consensus it has to be noted that the accent in the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory lies not on the maximization of agreement, but quite the opposite – on the minimization of disagreement (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1994).
- 7.
Like in the Dutch study, the statistical testing of the difference in unreasonableness between fallacious and non-fallacious discussion moves every type of fallacy (k = 12) was compared individually and contrasted with the 12 sound dialogue fragments, abstracting from the type of discussion context.
-
Result for the Netherlands (replication): direct attack: F(1,17) = 23.88; ES = 0.37; indirect attack: F(1,25) = 17.36; ES = 0.27; tu quoque: F(1,16) = 9.0699; ES = 0.19.
-
Result for England: direct attack F(1,31) = 50.02; ES = 0.32; indirect attack: F(1,28) = 19.66; ES = 0.14; tu quoque: F(1,25) = 5.99; ES = 0.05.
-
Result for Germany: direct attack: F(1,28) = 27.99; ES = 0.29; indirect attack: F(1,29) = 17.92; ES = 0.18; tu quoque: F(1,28) = 8.33; ES = 0.09.
-
Result for Spain: direct attack: F(1,41) = 26.95; ES = 0.16; indirect attack: F(1,31) = 6.34; ES = 0.05; tu quoque: F(1,29) = 2.58; ES = 0.01.
-
Result for Spain (replication): direct attack: F(1,19) = 17.17; ES = 0.29; indirect attack: F(1,14) = 6.51; ES = 0.15; tu quoque: F(1,15) = 5.24; ES = 0.08.
-
Result for Indonesia: direct attack: F(1,35) = 40.69; ES = 0.28; indirect attack: F(1,39) = 21.47; ES = 0.16; tu quoque: F(1,38) = 3.96; ES = 0.04. With the exception of the tu quoque fallacy in the Spanish main study all tests carried out are statistically significant at 5% level.
-
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., Meuffels, B. (2009). The Confrontation Stage: The Freedom Rule. In: Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness. Argumentation Library, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2613-2
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2614-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)