The Controversial Approach in the Western Argumentation 

Western argumentation is “controversial”. It is based on the fact that it is possible for two honest speakers who are committed to their words and actions to develop, on a given topic, two well-constructed, well-informed, plausible, and relatively reasonable discourses that nevertheless lead to incompatible conclusions (visions, opinions, etc.), thus producing an argumentative question.

Western argumentation, can be defined as a mixed cognitive and linguistic activity, the systematic study of which developed from Aristotle, based mainly on data provided by judicial discourse, speeches made in court, deliberative discourse, assembly speeches, and the epidictic episodes that enter into these discourses. To these classical genres, have been added the genre of religious discourse, advertising discourse.

These discourses are prototypical of what the Western tradition understands by argumentation. It is in these dialogical, openly argumentative contexts that the argumentative phenomena are most clearly present and are therefore easier to study, where the concepts and methods specific to them are most productive.

This does not, of course, prevent argumentation from occurring in other contexts; if we define it, for example, as the implementation of an effort to persuade, then it becomes a universal property of human speech.

Furthermore, we know that the intension of a concept (its definitional content) decreases as its extension increases (it is applied to objects that do not belong to its fundamental domain). The perpetual generalization of a concept to new objects leads to a dilution of its meaning, as we have seen with the concept of structure.

« The agent is not the weigher but the arm of the balance itself”

The third party as the balancing power

In the Western model, the metaphor of the arm of the scales is appropriate for describing the role of the Third Party and, specifically, that of the Judge [2] (Plantin 2021, Argumentative Roles).

However, for the scales to stabilize and clearly indicate a trend, two conditions must be met: first, that “knowledge has been attained,” and second, that there is sufficient time for orientations and inclinations to organize themselves, which presupposes that the decision is not extremely urgent.

The arguer as the arm of the balance

A.C. Graham, in his book Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China (1989), notes that Confucian philosophy has much to say about the problems of choice and action, and that it knows how to circumvent the pitfalls of alternatives:

Confucius is of course very much concerned with choice in the most general sense of the word, as settling after due consideration on a particular course of action,

If you don’t say “What shall I do about it, what shall I do about it ?” there is nothing I can do about you (Analects_GRAHAM 1989 15/16)

But choice in this general sense does not necessarily imply even the posing of alternatives. It might be the contemplation of one’s situation, and the examples of the sages in similar situations until inclination spontaneously settles in a certain direction. (Graham 1989, p. 27) [1]

The overriding imperative is to learn and arrive at knowledge; once you know, orientations towards action may be left to take care of itself as confused inclinations sort themselves out. To apply the metaphor of weighing which Confucius does not use, the agent is not the weigher but the arm of the balance itself. (op. cit, p. 28)

***

A PROGRAM

The arguer as the arm of the balance is a telling model-metaphor, and as such, an excellent « alternative to the Toulmin’s model of argument« , predominant, if not exclusive in the Western world.
The position of this  model-metaphor vis-à-vis the Toulmin’s model remains to be established.