Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy

Much has been written about theory and practice in the law, and the tension between practitioners and theorists. Judges do not cite theoretical articles often; they rarely "apply" theories to particular cases. These arguments are not revisited. Instead the Essay explores the working and interaction of theory and practice, practitioners and theorists. The Essay starts with a story about solving a legal issue using our intellectual tools - theory, practice, and their progenies: experience and "gut." Next the Essay elaborates on the nature of theory, practice, experience and "gut." The third part of the Essay discusses theories that are helpful to practitioners and those that are less helpful. The Essay concludes that practitioners theorize, and theorists practice. They use these intellectual tools differently because the goals and orientations of theorists and practitioners, and the constraints under which they act, differ. Theory, practice, experience and "gut" help us think, remember, decide and create. They complement each other like the two sides of the same coin: distinct but inseparable.

Of Theory and Practice

Governing the Commons

Inclusion and democracy.

Thank you very much for downloading the uses of argument. Maybe you have knowledge that, people have search numerous times for their chosen novels like this the uses of argument, but end up in infectious downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of tea in the afternoon, instead they juggled with some malicious bugs inside their computer. the uses of argument is available in our digital library an online access to it is set as public so you can download it instantly. Our digital library hosts in multiple locations, allowing you to get the most less latency time to download any of our books like this one. Merely said, the the uses of argument is universally compatible with any devices to read.

The Uses Of Argument

Ever since the Internet has provided easy access to online discussion, advocates of deliberative democracy have hoped for an improved public sphere. This article investigates which particular platform features promote deliberative debate online. We assume that moderation, asynchronous discussion, a well-defined topic, and the availability of information enhance the level of deliberative quality of user comments. A comparison between different types of news platforms that differ in terms of design (a news forum, news websites, and Facebook news pages) shows that deliberation (measured as rationality, reciprocity, respect, and constructiveness) differs significantly between platforms. We find that the news forum yields the most rational and respectful debate. While user comments on news websites are only slightly less deliberative, Facebook comments perform poorly in terms of deliberative quality. However, comments left on news websites and on Facebook show particularly high levels of reciprocity among users.

Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms

Previous research suggests that distinct characteristics of news articles, such as their news factors, account for the different participation rates in comment sections as well as the degree of int

Linking News Value Theory With Online Deliberation: How News Factors and Illustration Factors in News Articles Affect the Deliberative Quality of User Discussions in SNS’ Comment Sections:

This paper focuses on the automated extraction of argument components from user content in the German online participation project Tempelhofer Feld. We adapt existing argumentation models into a new model for decision-oriented online participation. Our model consists of three categories: major positions, claims, and premises. We create a new German corpus for argument mining by annotating our dataset with our model. Afterwards, we focus on the two classification tasks of identifying argumentative sentences and predicting argument components in sentences. We achieve macro-averaged F1 measures of 69.77% and 68.5%, respectively.

/pdf/what-to-do-with-an-airport-mining-arguments-in-the-german-sql3oltwgv.pdf

What to Do with an Airport? Mining Arguments in the German Online Participation Project Tempelhofer Feld

This article examines the framing of the Ukraine crisis in German and Russian television political talk shows Informed by peace journalism and constructive journalism, it investigates how Russian and German shows frame the Ukraine crisis and to what extent constructive and destructive frames are used Qualitative content analysis of 20 shows (10 Russian and 10 German) enables examination of frame content and their constructive or destructive character While constructive frames address situational causal interpretations and constructive problem treatments, destructive frames blame one party for the crisis and apply either no treatment or a destructive one Findings reveal that shows in both countries provide different frames on both the situation inside Ukraine and international tensions between Russia and the West While large parts of both strands of the debates are destructive in character, the country’s shows include more constructive frames in different periods of the crisis

Katharina Esau

Papers

Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms

Linking News Value Theory With Online Deliberation: How News Factors and Illustration Factors in News Articles Affect the Deliberative Quality of User Discussions in SNS’ Comment Sections:

What to Do with an Airport? Mining Arguments in the German Online Participation Project Tempelhofer Feld

Framing the Ukraine crisis: A comparison between talk show debates in Russian and German television:

Different Arenas, Different Deliberative Quality? Using a Systemic Framework to Evaluate Online Deliberation on Immigration Policy in Germany