Author

Justis Mills

Date of Award

2013

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Bachelors

Department

Humanities

First Advisor

Edidin, Aron

Keywords

Super Smash Bros, Political Argument, Philosophy

Area of Concentration

Philosophy

Abstract

People are often inclined to get into political arguments, but it is not always clear why we bother. In this thesis, I establish a provisional definition for what makes an argument political, explore reasons why political arguments may be more vitriolic than their nonpolitical counterparts, and lay out a set of reasons why a person might want to start a political debate. I determine that the main reason will generally be to move an opponent's position slightly toward one's own. Once I have established some better and worse reasons for arguing, I look into ways that unequal power dynamics cause many arguments to be unfair. I suggest ways to mitigate unfair arguing practices with categorical rules of thumb, employing Miranda Fricker's Epistemic Injustice to support a virtue ethical account of avoiding arguing unfairly. My final chapter is an extended case study. I trace out a lengthy argument between four players of a popular series of video games. I analyze these arguments in part using the techniques developed in the first two chapters, as well as making some observations about expertise and the role of extreme positions in contextualizing debates between relative moderates.

Rights

The author has granted New College of Florida the nonexclusive right to archive, make accessible, and distribute for educational purposes this work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. The copyright of this work remains with the author.

Share

COinS