Collective Argumentative Criticism in Informal Online Discussion Forums

References

• Aakhus, M. (2002a). Modeling reconstruction in groupware technology. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 121–136). Amsterdam: SicSat.
   Google Scholar
• Aakhus, M. (2002b). The design of forums for online public deliberation and the consequences for argumentation. The Kentucky Journal of Communication , 21(2), 139–149.
   Google Scholar
• Aakhus, M. , & Jackson, S. (2005). Technology, interaction, and design. In K. Fitch & R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 411–436). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Amossy, R. (2010, July). “ Flaming” and polemical discourse on the net: Towards a rhetoric of dissent. Paper presented at the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Bächtiger, A. , Niemeyer, S. , Neblo, M. , Steenbergen, M. R. , & Steiner, J. (2010). Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities. The Journal of Political Philosophy , 18(1), 32–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. (1994). Deliberative rationality and models of democratic legitimacy. Constellations , 7(1), 26–52.
   Google Scholar
• Benson, T. W. (1996). Rhetoric, civility, and community: political debate on computer bulletin boards. Communication Quarterly , 44(3), 359–378.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, J. A. (2007). Relevance, acceptability, and sufficiency today. Anthropology and Philosophy , 8(1–2), 33–47.
   Google Scholar
• Blumler, J. G. , & Gurevitch, M. (2001). The new media and our political communication discontents: Democratizing cyberspace. Information, Communication & Society , 4(1), 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Brashers, D. E. , Adkins, M. , Meyers, R. A. , & Mittleman, D. (1995). The facilitation of argumentation in computer-mediated group decision making. In F. H. van Eemeren , R. Grootendorst , J. A. Blair , & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Special Fields and Cases: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Argumentation (pp. 606–621). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
   Google Scholar
• Brashers, D. E. , & Meyers, R. A. (1989). Tag-team argument and group decision-making: A preliminary investigation. In B. E. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of Argument: Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 542–550). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
   Google Scholar
• Bruxelles, S. , & Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2004). Coalitions in polylogues. Journal of Pragmatics , 36(1), 75–113.
   Google Scholar
• Canary, D. J. , Brossmann, B. G. , & Seibold, D. R. (1987). Argument structures in decision-making groups. Southern Speech Communication Journal , 55(1), 18–37.
   Google Scholar
• Cappella, J. N. , Price, V. , & Nir, L. (2002). Argument Repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic dialogue during campaign 2000. Political Communication , 19(1), 73–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, L. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 7(1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issuel/dahlberg.html
   Google Scholar
• Davies, T. , & Gangadharan, S.P. (Eds.). (2009). Online deliberation: Design, research and practice. . Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, R. (1999). The web of politics. The internet's impact on the American political system. . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, A. R. (2002). The moderator as an emerging intermediary: The role of the moderator in internet discussions about public issues. Information Policy , 7(1), 3–20.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. H. , & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. H. , & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. H. , Grootendorst, R. , Jackson, S. , & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. . Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F.H. , & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 13–28). Amsterdam: SicSat.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. H. , & Houtlosser, P. (2005). Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In D. Hitchcock (Ed.), The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, 18–21 May 2005 (pp. 75–84). Hamilton, Ont.: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson, R. (2008). Convergent evolution: The development of online engagement in Westminster and Whitehall through the use of online forums. Parliamentary Affairs , 61(1), 216–225.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text , 25/26, 56–80.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, T. & Witschge, T. (2003). In search of online deliberation: Towards a new method for examining the quality of online discussions. Communications , 28(2), 173–204.
   Google Scholar
• Hample, D. (2005). Inventional capacity. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Argumentation in practice (pp. 337–348). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hample, D. , Gordy, C. , Sellie, A. , Wright, M. , & Zanolla, D. (2008). Inventional repertoires and written messages. Communication Studies , 55(3), 220–234.
   Google Scholar
• Hauben, M. , & Hauben, R. (1997). Netizens: On the history and impact of Usenet and the internet. . Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
   Google Scholar
• Herring, S.C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 4(4). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/herring.html
   Google Scholar
• Hill, K. A. , & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the internet. . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Himelboim, I. , Gleave, E. , & Smith, M. (2009). Discussion catalysts in online political discussions: Content importers and conversation starters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 74(4), 771–789.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, S. (1986). Building a case for claims about discourse structure. In D. G. Ellis & W. A. Donohue (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language and discourse processes (pp. 129–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, S. (1992). “Virtual standpoints” and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In F. H. van Eemeren , R. Grootendorst , J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 260–269). Amsterdam: SicSat.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, S. (1998). Disputation by design. Argumentation , 72(2), 183–198.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, S. (1986). How to make an argument from example in discourse analysis. In D. G. Ellis & W. A. Donohue (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language and discourse processes (pp. 149–167). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, S. (2003). Two conceptions of openness in argumentation theory. In F. H. van Eemeren , J. A. Blair , C. A. Willard & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 553–556). Amsterdam: SicSat.
   Google Scholar
• Janssen, D. , & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Politica , 40(3), 317–335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kayany, J. M. (1998). Contexts of uninhibited online behavior: Flaming in social newsgroups on Usenet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science , 49 (12), 1135–1141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2004). Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics , 36(1), 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemus, D. R. , Seibold, D. R. , Flanagin, A. J. , & Metzger, M. J. (2004). Argument and decision making in computer-mediated groups,. Journal of Communication , 54(2), 302–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewiński, M. (2010). Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type: A pragma-dialectical analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring with critical reactions. . Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
   Google Scholar
• Linaa Jensen, J. (2003). Public spheres on the internet: Anarchic or government-sponsored - a comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies , 26(4), 349–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. (1999). Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In S. Macedo (Ed.), Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement (pp. 211–242). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. , Bohman, J. , Chambers, S. , Estlund, D. , Føllesdal, A. , & Fung, A. ,, (2010). The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy , 75(1), 64–100.
   Google Scholar
• Marcoccia, M. (2004). On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. Journal of Pragmatics , 36(1), 115–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A. , Brashers, D. E. , & Hanner, J. (2000). Majority/minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcome links. Journal of Communication , 50(4), 3–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Moor, A. , & Aakhus, M. (2006). Argumentation support: From technologies to tools. Communications of the ACM , 45(3), 93–98.
   Google Scholar
• nobama thinks he is robin hood. (2008). Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum/browse_frm/thread/e3325Ia56f53930f/d778Id4f7896le69?tvc=1#d778Id4f7896le69
   Google Scholar
• Obama's brother arrested for drug possession. (2009). Retrieved February 11, 2009, from http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_frm/thread/11be728259021c2d
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society , 6(2), 259–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, V. , Nir, L. , & Capella, J. N. (2006). Normative and informational influences in online political discussions. Communication Theory , 76(1), 47–74.
   Google Scholar
• Rehg, W. , McBurney, P. , & Parsons, S. (2005). Computer decision-support systems for public argumentation: assessing deliberative legitimacy. AI & Society , 75(3), 203–229.
   Google Scholar
• Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. . Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Ryfe, D. S. (2006). Narrative and deliberation in small group forums. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 34(1), 72–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seibold, D. R. , McPhee, R. D. , Poole, M. S. , Tanita, N. E. , & Canary, D.J. (1981). Argument, group influence, and decision outcomes. In C. Ziegelmueller & J. Rhodes (Eds.), Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the Second SCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 663–692). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
   Google Scholar
• Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (1992). Analysing complex argumentation: The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. . Amsterdam: SicSat.
   Google Scholar
• Steenbergen, M. R. , Bächtiger, A. , Spörndli, M. , & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics , 7(1), 21–48.
   Google Scholar
• Steffensmeier, T. , & Schenck-Hamlin, W. (2008). Argument quality in public deliberations. Argumentation and Advocacy , 45(1), 21–36.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tapper, J. (2008, October 14). ‘Spread the Wealth’? ABC News' Political Punch Blog. Retrieved January 31, 2011, from http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html.
   Google Scholar
• Top 100 text newsgroups by postings. (2011). Retrieved January 31, 2011, from http://www.newsadmin.com/top100tmsgs.asp
   Google Scholar
• Weger, Jr., H. , & Aakhus, M. (2003). Arguing in internet chat rooms: Argumentative adaptations to chat room design and some consequences for public deliberation at a distance. Argumentation and Advocacy , 40(1), 23–38.
   Google Scholar
• Wenzel, J. W. (1990). Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In J. Schuetz & R. Trapp (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9–26). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
   Google Scholar
• Wilhelm, A. G. (2000). Democracy in the digital age: Challenges to political life in cyberspace. . New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, S. (2006). Design matters: The political efficacy of government-run discussion forums. In S. Oates , D. Owen & R. K. Gibson (Eds.), The internet and politics: Citizens, voters, and activists (pp. 80–99). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, S. , & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society , 9(5), 849–869.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar