Mentioning and then refuting an anticipated counterargument: a conceptual and empirical study of the persuasiveness of a mode of strategic manoeuvring

In the context of a critical discussion the arguer bases his choice of arguments on the type of critical reactions that the other party has put forward with regard to the arguer’s standpoint. In the context of a monologue, however, the arguer should determine in advance whether to simply mention supporting arguments or, in addition to doing so, mention and refute possible counterarguments. The aim of this study is to examine theoretically and empirically which of these two options is more persuasive. Relying on the pragma-dialectical concept of strategic manoeuvring, it is argued that mentioning and then refuting an anticipated counterargument is more persuasive than mentioning only supporting arguments. This theoretical claim is tested empirically. Results have shown that ordinary arguers find argumentative messages in which, in addition to a supporting argument, a counterargument is mentioned and then refuted more persuasive than messages in which only supporting arguments are mentioned.