Book chapter

Online Critical Debate Model: Deliberation for the Digital Age

Claudio Fuentes Bravo
University of Chile, Chile

Julián Goñi Jerez
Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Chile


ABOUT THIS CHAPTER

Through our experience during a large-scale public engagement exercise in Chile we draw conclusions to adapt and improve the Critical Debate Model to an online format. We highlight the importance of epistemic opposition and structured annotation for the execution of debates, while also exploring the possibilities of automated analysis using Natural Language Processing. We conclude by describing how an online version of the Critical Debate Model could be implemented.
Read more

Keywords: Online Debate, Deliberative Debate, Critical Debate Model

Formats

PDF

Pages: 69-86

Published by: Firenze University Press

Publication year: 2021

DOI: 10.36253/978-88-5518-329-1.08

Download PDF

© 2021 Author(s)
Content licence CC BY 4.0
Metadata licence CC0 1.0

XML

Publication year: 2021

DOI: 10.36253/978-88-5518-329-1.08

Download XML

© 2021 Author(s)
Content licence CC BY 4.0
Metadata licence CC0 1.0

References

  1. Billig, M. 1996. Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Chambers, S. 2003. “Deliberative Democratic Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 6 (1): 307-326. 10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538
  3. Chilvers, J. 2008. “Deliberating Competence.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 33 (2): 155-85. 10.1177/0162243907307594
  4. Curato, N., J. S. Dryzek, S. A. Ercan, C. M. Hendriks, and S. Niemeyer 2017. “Twelve Key Findings in Deliberative Democracy Research.” Daedalus 146 (3): 28-38. 10.1162/DAED_a_00444
  5. Dryzek, J. S. 2002. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. Dryzek, J. S., and S. Niemeyer. 2006. “Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus a s Political Ideals Arguments for Consensus.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 634-49.
  7. Elstub, S., and O. Escobar. 2019. “Defining and typologising democratic innovations.” In Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance, 11-31. Edward Elgar Publishing. 10.4337/9781786433862.00009
  8. Escobar, O., and S. Elstub. 2017. “Forms of mini-publics: An introduction to deliberative innovations in democratic practice.” Research and Development Note 4: 1-14. Australia: New Democracy Foundation, Royal Exchange.
  9. Freeley, A. J., and D. L. Steinberg. 2013, Argumentation and debate. UK: Cengage Learning.
  10. Fuentes, C., and C. Santibáñez. 2011, “Diseñando debates: preliminares para un enfoque dialógico y crítico.” In Argomentare le proprie ragioni. Organizzare, condurre e valutare un dibattito, ed. A. Cattani, 111-37. Casoria (NA): Loffredo University Press.
  11. Fuentes, C. 2011. “Elementos para o desenho de um modelo de debate crítico na escola.” In Argumentação na escola: o conhecimento em construção, eds. S. Leitão, and M. C. Damianovic, 225-250. Campinas, SP: Pontes Editores.
  12. Fuentes, C. 2019. “La argumentación, entre pensamiento, democracia y aprendizaje.” Cogency, 11(1–2): 7-11. 10.32995/cogency.v11i1-2.330
  13. Kuhn, D. 1991. The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Landemore, H. 2017. “Beyond the Fact of Disagreement? The Epistemic Turn in Deliberative Democracy.” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 277-95. 10.1080/02691728.2017.1317868
  15. Leitão, S. 2000. “The potential of argument in knowledge building.” Human development 43 (6): 332-60.
  16. Leitão, S. 2008. “La dimensión epistémica de la argumentación.” In Ciencias de la mente: aproximaciones desde latinoamérica, eds. E. Kronmiiller, e C. Cornejo, 89-119. Santiago, Chile: J. C. Sáez Editor.
  17. Martí, J. L. 2017. “Pluralism and consensus in deliberative democracy.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 20 (5): 556-79. 10.1080/13698230.2017.1328089
  18. Niemeyer, S. 2011. “The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-Publics.” Politics & Society 39 (1): 103-40. 10.1177/0032329210395000
  19. Niemeyer, S., and J. S. Dryzek. 2007. “The Ends of Deliberation: Meta-consensus and inter-subjective rationality as ideal outcomes.” Swiss Political Science Review 13 (4): 497-526. 10.1002/j.1662-6370.2007.tb00087.x
  20. Niemeyer, S., and J. Jennstal. 2018. “Scaling Up Deliberative Effects—Applying Lessons of Mini-Publics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, eds. A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, and M. Warren, 328-47. Oxford: Oxford University Pre 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198747369.013.31
  21. Ropers, N. 2017. Basics of Dialogue Facilitation. Berlin: Berghof Foundation.
  22. Schecter, D., and B. Sullivan. 2018. “Beyond Mini-publics Alone.” Research and Development Note 4: 1-4. Australia: New Democracy Foundation, Royal Exchange.

Export citation

Selected format

Usage statistics policy

  • 6Chapter Downloads

Cita come:
Fuentes Bravo, C.; Goñi Jerez, J.; 2021; Online Critical Debate Model: Deliberation for the Digital Age. Firenze, Firenze University Press.


Distributori


Indici e aggregatori bibliometrici