Practicing argumentation in secondary school classrooms benefits students both in terms of learning how to argue and learning the course material at hand. Amidst the onset and growth of engineering design courses in secondary schools, this dissertation is an exploratory case study to characterize the use of argumentation among novice student engineering designers. The setting is a high school robotics class. Specifically, a group of students from one class section teamed up with a group of students from a separate class section to design and build a single robot. The team members communicated online via a shared, editable document. That text is the primary data set for my analysis. I looked for indications of argumentation structure that emerged from the online discussion, given that, to my knowledge, the students had not been taught argumentation strategies, per se. Engineering design is relatively new to secondary school, so I thought it appropriate to develop a baseline—a case study that reveals how students communicate about their designs when left largely to their own devices. This study may inform the development argumentation scaffolds that support the students’ existing strengths while ameliorating their weaknesses. My analytical supposition was that argumentation in design will take the form of resolving differences of opinion toward the creation of a single design. Hence, I used Pragma-dialectic theory as my analytical framework. It is a broad theory, based upon resolving differences of opinion in everyday conversation. As such, Pragma-dialectic theory may also be able to encompass the idiosyncrasies of team design, such as reliance on intuition and experience, as well as the important roles that designed objects play throughout the process. Taken together, the importance of intuition, experience, and objects suggests multiple modes of communication that ought to be considered arguments within design deliberations. Results suggest that the students worked to resolve differences of design opinions. In doing so, the students relied heavily on their designed objects to make their arguments meaningful. I classified five object-based claims which emerged from the students’ discussions: keystone, tinkering, visual, tactile, and counterfactual. These form the beginnings of a theory of object-based argumentation. / text

The topic of the present dissertation is argumentation in the late statesman Olof Palme (1927-1986). One may reasonably think that the fascination for Palme is mainly due to his way of expressing his policy, and therefore also to his argumentation strategy. The theoretical background consists of Lloyd F. Bitzers’s theory on the rhetorical situation, Stephen E. Toulmin’s theory on the description of argumentation structures and on the notion of fallacy, as it appears in pragma-dialectics and informal logic. The rhetorical situation is used to identify vital presuppositions and conditions surrounding the analysed argumentation.Toulmin’s theoretical model is used to analyse structures in the argumentation, and the notion of fallacy is used to discover infringements upon these structures. The object of this analysis is the decisive electoral debates of autumn 1976 between Olof Palme and Thorbjörn Fälldin, held in Scandinavium, Gothenburg, Sweden. Palme had to think of a number of surrounding conditions, such as that the debate was decisive, the composition of the audience. Palme and Fälldin otherwise appeared to be rather equally equipped for the debate. Palme’s task was primarily to gain the number of votes needed to continue to keep social democracy in power. There seem to exist several levels making up his argumentation, grouped under attack and defence. Defence is in most cases based upon a strong connection with the social democrat tradition. The attack is more complicated, linked to Palme’s overall argumentative intention: to depict the non-socialists as a bad governing alternative, and the social democrats as a better one. Fallacies are regarded as instances of breaking the frame of rules that govern a critical discussion. Palme has several fallacy-like features in his argumentation. Among those, most common, are that he attacks the person Thorbjörn Fälldin, instead of the policy or party that he represents. Palme also starts from presupposed premises and tries to link the economic policy of the alliance to an intellectually-thought delimiting between liberal and conservative capitalism and social-democrat solidarity. He strives to portray the liberals and conservatives as money-orientated, whereas social democracy is depicted as people-orientated.Palme goes arguably too far at several moments during the debate,which possibly hurts his own argumentation. / Innehåller en 20-sidig utskrift från radions P1 från duellen mellan Palme och Fälldin i Göteborg den 1 sept 1976.