How Participants Employ Rhetorical Strategies and Skillfully Leverage the Notion of "Common Sense" To Advance Their Arguments Within the Realm of Contentious Debates?

Extract

[...] Furthermore, the manipulation of "common sense" in the context of polemical exchanges reveals intriguing nuances. Traditional media's reliance on well-established beliefs aligns with the conceptual framework proposed by Walton and Macagno (2006), indicating the inherent connection between "common sense" and shared beliefs within discourse. On the other hand, alternative media sources exhibit a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom, using "common sense" in inventive ways to resonate with specific subgroups. This utilization of "common sense" as both a validating tool and a provocative device reinforces the adaptability of rhetoric within polemics (Walton & Macagno, 2006). [...]

[...] Dans: Luce Albert éd., Polémique et rhétorique: De l'Antiquité à nos jours (pp. 399-412). Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur. https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.albert.2010.01.0399 Liakopoulos, M. (2000). Argumentation analysis. Qualitative researching with text, image, and sound, 152-171. Moens, M. F. (2018). [...]

[...] How Participants Employ Rhetorical Strategies and Skillfully Leverage the Notion of "Common Sense" To Advance Their Arguments Within the Realm of Contentious Debates? Abstract In this paper, we delve into the multifaceted realm of polemical exchanges, closely examining the intricate interplay between rhetoric, argumentation, and the fundamental concept of "common sense." Through a comprehensive analysis of Belgian written opinion articles from both conventional and alternative media sources during the year 2021, we aim to elucidate how participants strategically employ rhetorical strategies and skillfully leverage the notion of "common sense" to advance their arguments within the realm of contentious debates. [...]

[...] Her insightful perspective on dichotomization, polarization, and vilification has enabled a more comprehensive understanding of how polemics diverge from other forms of argumentative discourse (Amossy, 2002). Analysis and Findings The empirical analysis of Belgian opinion articles unearths a spectrum of specialized rhetorical strategies, shedding light on the deliberate techniques employed by participants (Moens, 2018). A recurring pattern surfaces, revealing a structured sequence: participants amplify their personal perspectives, magnify existing differences, and often resort to casting opposing viewpoints in a negative light (Moens, 2018). These strategic maneuvers are not mere happenstance but are orchestrated to bolster the efficacy of arguments (Amossy, 2002). [...]

[...] Traditional media sources lean on "common sense" to validate their arguments through shared beliefs, while alternative outlets leverage it to challenge conventional wisdom and provoke thought (Walton & Macagno, 2006). This duality highlights the adaptability of rhetoric and its inherent ability to engage diverse audiences and catalyze change. As participants navigate the intricate terrain of polemics, they partake in a negotiation of public opinion, strategically harnessing rhetoric and "common sense" to shape the trajectory of discussions (Liakopoulos, 2000). The convergence of these elements weaves a complex narrative that defines the contours of polemical discourse. [...]