Abstract

This paper aims to analyze two argumentation methods that can be used when engaged in arguments with people whose opinions are radically opposed and which tend to take place amidst heightened emotions, or in which one of the interlocutors is very likely to, as in the case of an argument with a religious or political fanatic, resort to verbal or physical violence. The first method, proposed by Philippe Breton, is based on a protocol that includes three actions: distancing, active listening and reasoning. The second method, proposed by Hubert Schleichert, entails what he calls “subversive reasoning”.