Contained in:
Book Chapter

Online Critical Debate Model: Deliberation for the Digital Age

  • Claudio Fuentes Bravo
  • Julián Goñi Jerez

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.

  • Keywords:
  • Online Debate,
  • Deliberative Debate,
  • Critical Debate Model,
+ Show More

Claudio Fuentes Bravo

University of Chile, Chile

Julián Goñi Jerez

Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Chile

  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.
  3. Chilvers, J. 2008. “Deliberating Competence.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 33 (2): 155-85.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  18. Niemeyer, S. 2011. “The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-Publics.” Politics & Society 39 (1): 103-40.
  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.
  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
  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.
PDF
  • Publication Year: 2021
  • Pages: 69-86
  • Content License: CC BY 4.0
  • © 2021 Author(s)

XML
  • Publication Year: 2021
  • Content License: CC BY 4.0
  • © 2021 Author(s)

Chapter Information

Chapter Title

Online Critical Debate Model: Deliberation for the Digital Age

Authors

Claudio Fuentes Bravo, Julián Goñi Jerez

Language

English

DOI

10.36253/978-88-5518-329-1.08

Peer Reviewed

Publication Year

2021

Copyright Information

© 2021 Author(s)

Content License

CC BY 4.0

Metadata License

CC0 1.0

Table of Contents

Book Title

Competing, cooperating, deciding: towards a model of deliberative debate

Editors

Adelino Cattani, Bruno Mastroianni

Peer Reviewed

Number of Pages

168

Publication Year

2021

Copyright Information

© 2021 Author(s)

Content License

CC BY 4.0

Metadata License

CC0 1.0

Publisher Name

Firenze University Press

DOI

10.36253/978-88-5518-329-1

ISBN Print

978-88-5518-328-4

eISBN (pdf)

978-88-5518-329-1

Series Title

Communication and Philosophical Cultures. Researches and Instruments

25

Fulltext
downloads

55

Views

Export Citation

1,187

Open Access Books

in the Catalogue

886

Book Chapters

1,824,767

Fulltext
downloads

2,627

Authors

from 520 Research Institutions

of 51 Nations

50

scientific boards

from 276 Research Institutions

of 39 Nations

786

Referees

from 187 Research Institutions

of 32 Nations