Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1
PhD Student, Communication Sciences, Department of Communication, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2
Associate Professor, Communication Sciences, Department of Communication, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
3
Associate Professor, Communication Sciences, Department of Communication, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
4
Professor, Communication Sciences, Department of Communication, Faculty of Communication Sciences, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran
10.22080/jsn.2025.29999.1113
Abstract
Public controversies surrounding large-scale development projects, such as dam construction, are arenas for argumentative confrontation wherein various parties strive to attract public opinion and legitimize their positions by employing persuasive and rhetorical strategies. Understanding the argumentative techniques used in these debates is vital for comprehending how public beliefs are formed and for evaluating the quality of social dialogues. This article, focusing on the controversial case of the Chamshir Dam, seeks to dissect and comparatively analyze the argumentation methods and techniques employed by the state's discourse and that of its critics. This research adopts a qualitative approach and the method of argumentative discourse analysis, centered on the theoretical framework of Douglas Walton's "Argumentation Schemes." The findings indicate that both discourses extensively use similar schemes, but with entirely opposing content and orientation. "Argument from Expert Opinion" is transformed into a "battle over scientific credibility" (official science vs. independent science), and "Argument from Consequences" delineates conflicting futures (hope and development vs. fear and disaster). The widespread use of "Argument from Emotion" and "Ad Hominem Attack" on both sides shows that the controversy more closely resembles a "quarrel" aimed at defeating an opponent than a "critical discussion" for resolving differences. This research emphasizes that enhancing the quality of public debates in Iran requires a move towards more substantiated arguments and the creation of spaces for genuine dialogue between different expert and value-based perspectives.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)