| Emotional arguments present serious challenges to the tradition of Argumentation Theory. In essence, this dissertation expands on the emotional mode proposed by Michael A. Gilbert (1997), providing a more thorough understanding of what is entailed in emotional argumentation, as a means to enhancing its acknowledgment. The notion of argument subscribed to defines an argument as some sort of interaction where there is disagreement between parties. The disagreement can be quite innocuous, an aggressive and personally attacking episode, or anything in between these extremes. An emotional argument occurs when the dissent between interlocutors is of an emotional nature.;Selected theory behind emotions, arguments, and emotional arguments is provided, and five different types of emotional arguments are derived. In order to demonstrate the practicality of emotional arguments, they are then discussed alongside Walton's six dialogues (1998), demonstrating how they meet a particular dialogue's argumentative goals.;The "Amenable Argumentation Approach" is established as a broader framework that can accommodate more than just the traditional view of arguments. It encompasses traditional argumentation theories, plus it is open to adding new epistemological discoveries, observations, and practices that might remain outside the span of current argumentation theories. It is the conceptual framework and ideologies that sustain the Amenable Argumentation Approach that accommodate and acknowledge emotional arguments.;In conclusion, different tools stemming from Personality Theory, Conflict Resolution, and the practice of mediation are introduced as practical means for dealing with emotional arguments as theorists, analysts, lay people, professionals -- argument practitioners at large.;A detailed critical picture of Argumentation Theory, through the lens of feminism and post colonialism, is provided. These critiques demonstrate significant shortcomings of prominent argumentation theories, by pointing to criteria that get omitted from most models of argumentation analysis: culture, tradition, class, gender, age, sex, religion, among others, all of which tend to amalgamate with emotional arguments. The critique espoused argues that the tradition of argumentation can afford to be more inclusive of different modes of communicating dissent -- specifically so that emotional-type arguments have a place in the field. |
