Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatic perspectives on disagreement
Edited by Jennifer Schumann and Steve Oswald
[Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 12:1] 2024
► pp. 89–110

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

“So I know how to do this”

The prototypical argumentative pattern in U.S.A. presidential debates

ORCiD logo with link | University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Amsterdam.

Published online: 7 June 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00098.rei
Abstract
Debates are important events during presidential elections in the U.S.A. Candidates are juxtaposed and engage with each other on a wide range of issues. This poses the question how disagreement between the two candidates and the public is managed. The aim of this paper is to articulate the prototypical argumentative pattern used by candidates which shows that to defend that the public should vote for them, candidates recurringly make three central claims. Specifically, they claim that some political action has to happen, they will do that action if elected, while their opponent will not. This basic argument scheme – which could be referred to as campaign promise argumentation – is further expanded by candidates by responding to six distinct critical questions, resulting in a prototypical argumentative pattern designed to deal with potential criticisms against a bid to become president.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and method
  • 3.Theoretical framework
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Defending the need for political action
    • 4.2Defending one’s own commitment to execute a proposed policy
    • 4.3Defending the differentiating relevance of the policy proposal
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (30)
References
Andone, Corina. 2015. “Pragmatic Argumentation in European Practices of Political Accountability.” Argumentation 29 (1): 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “The Role of Pragmatic and Majority Argumentation in Reports of European Parliamentary Committees of Inquiry.” In Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 53–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andone, Corina, and José Alfonso Lomelí Hernández. 2019. “Scientific Arguments in Policy-Making.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (2): 195–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Auer, Jeffery J. 1968. “The Counterfeit Debates.” In The Great Debates. Background – Perspective – Effects, ed. by Sidney Kraus, 142–150. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benoit, William L., and William T. Wells. 1996. Candidates in Conflict: Persuasive Attack and Defense in the 1992 Presidential Debates. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bilmes, Jack. 1999. “Questions, Answers, and the Organization of Talk in the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate: Fundamental Considerations.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 32 (3): 213–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitzer, Lloyd F., and Theodore Rueter. 1980. Carter vs. Ford: The Counterfeit Debates of 1976. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Budzyńska-Daca, Agniezska, and Renata Botwina. 2015. “Pre-Election TV Debates – Persuasive Games between Ethos, Logos, and Pathos.” In Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu, and Stanca Măda, 39–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlin, Diana B., Eric Morris, and Shawna Smith. 2001. “The Influence of Format and Questions on Candidates’ Strategic Argument Choices in the 2000 Presidential Debates.” American Behavioral Scientist 44 (12): 2196–2218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlin, Diana Prentice, Charles Howard, Susan Stanfield, and Larry Reynolds. 1991. “The Effects of Presidential Debate Formats on Clash: A Comparative Analysis.” Argumentation and Advocacy 27 (3): 126–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “Argumentative Patterns Viewed from a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.” In Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 7–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Tjark Kruiger. 2015. “Identifying Argumentation Schemes.” In Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 703–712. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellsworth, John W. 1965. “Rationality and Campaigning: A Content Analysis of the 1960 Presidential Campaign Debates.” Western Political Quarterly 18 (4): 794–802. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garssen, Bart. 2017. “The Role of Pragmatic Problem-Solving Argumentation in Plenary Debate in the European Parliament.” In Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 31–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1994. “Actions, Speech Acts, Linguistically Mediated Interactions and the Lifeworld.” In Philosophical Problems Today, ed. by Guttorm Fløistad, 45–74. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hart, Roderick P., and Sharon E. Jarvis. 1997. “Political Debate: Forms, Styles, and Media.” American Behavioral Scientist 40 (8): 1095–1122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ihnen Jory, Constanza. 2012. Pragmatic Argumentation in Law-Making Debates. Instruments for the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation at the Second Reading of the British Parliament. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lamoureux, Elizabeth R., Heather S. Entrekin, and Mitchell S. McKinney. 1994. “Debating the Debates.” In The 1992 Presidential Debates in Focus, ed. by Diana B. Carlin and Mitchell S. McKinney, 55–67. Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lanoue, David J., and Peter Richard Schrott. 1991. The Joint Press Conference. The History, Impact, and Prospects of American Presidential Debates. Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2013. Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. Verso Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neagu, Maria-Ionela. 2015. “Political Debates: Deliberation, Persuasion, and Ethos Construction.” In Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu, and Stanca Măda, 85–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [URL].
Rowland, Robert C. 1986. “The Substance of the 1980 Carter-Reagan Debate.” Southern Speech Communication Journal 51 (2): 142–165. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. “The First 2012 Presidential Campaign Debate: The Decline of Reason in Presidential Debates.” Communication Studies 64 (5): 528–547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. “Implicit Standards of Public Argument in Presidential Debates: What the 2016 Debates Reveal about Public Deliberation.” Argumentation and Advocacy 54 (1–2): 76–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wagemans, Jean H. M. 2023. “How to Identify an Argument Type? On the Hermeneutics of Persuasive Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 2031: 117–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weiler, Michael. 1989. “The 1988 Electoral Debates and Debate Theory.” The Journal of the American Forensic Association 25 (4): 214–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Andone, Corina & Menno H. Reijven
2024. Quoting as an Argumentative Strategy in Dutch Televised Election Debates. In Not My Words [The Language of Politics, ], ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue