Abstract
In public debates, the discussion is frequently obstructed because one party attempts to exclude the other party?s point of view from consideration. The aim of the proposed research programme is to acquire the normatively valid and descriptively adequate insights that are necessary for analysing and assessing such obstructions when they occur. The starting point of the four projects that constitute the programme is that attempts to shut out a standpoint from the discussion are to be viewed as forms of confrontational ?strategic manoeuvring? in the way in which this term is defined in the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. In the projects, the following four questions will be answered: (1) Which forms of strategic manoeuvring can be distinguished in argumentative confrontations that serve to shut out a point of view from the discussion and which conditions must be fulfilled for the manoeuvring to be reasonable in the critical sense? (2) How can these forms of strategic manoeuvring be identified in argumentative discourse on the basis of their stylistic characteristics? (3) In which ways does a prominent form of such strategic manoeuvring, i.e., pointing out a logical or pragmatic inconsistency in the opponent?s position, manifest itself in the specific context of a public political discussion and to what extent can it be judged as reasonable in that context? (4) Are there any significant differences between the persuasive effects of reasonable and unreasonable variants of this form of strategic manoeuvring in the public political discussions in which it is used? The answers to these four questions will be integrated in a 'synthesizing' monograph about strategic manoeuvring in argumentative confrontations that enables a critical analyst to properly identify and evaluate attempts to exclude a particular position from the public debate.