Barriers to Fair Argumentation: Divisive Speech, Fallacies, and Discursive Injustice

The “Argumentation and Injustice conference”, held at Toronto Metropolitan University from May 28 to 31, brought together scholars to explore the ways in which argumentation practices can contribute to different forms of injustice. The conference hosted presentations on topics such as cultural argumentation and systemic injustices, epistemic injustice, political argumentation, argumentative injustice, the role of argumentation in oppression, etc. 

Two members of MultiPoD, Researcher Amalia Haro Marchal and Professor Marcin Lewiński (NOVA University of Lisbon), participated in the event, presenting work directly related to the project’s central concerns.

Divisive Speech in Public Debate

In his presentation, titled “Divisive Speech and Public Argument: A Polylogue Approach”, Prof. Marcin Lewiński explored the phenomenon of divisive speech. This term refers to communicative strategies designed to create disagreement and even hostility between different groups. Although these dynamics can occur in private conversations, Lewiński focused on how they function in public settings. His analysis was guided by two key questions: What pragmatic and argumentative mechanisms make divisive speech possible and widespread in public discourse? And is there a particular norm that helps us identify when divisive speech crosses the line and becomes problematic?

Lewiński draws on the concept of illocutionary pluralism — the idea that a single statement can carry multiple intended meanings depending on the context — to explain how this can be exploited for manipulative purposes. He argues that this feature is both common and seemingly neutral, which makes it particularly dangerous. Because the line between legitimate and illegitimate uses is often unclear, it can serve as a subtle yet powerful means of creating division. As a result, divisive speech can significantly hinder equal participation in public deliberation. When used strategically, it can undermine mutual understanding and weaken the conditions necessary for fair and inclusive argumentative exchanges. Therefore, recognising and critically examining divisive speech is essential for identifying and addressing the communicative barriers that stand in the way of multicultural and egalitarian forms of argumentation.

How ‘Poisoning the Well’ can reinforce injustice?

Researcher Amalia Haro presented two papers at this conference. One of them, co-authored with Manuel Almagro (University of Valencia) and titled “Against the neutral view of poisoning the well“, focused on a well-known fallacy in argumentation theory: Poisoning the Well — the intent to discredit an opponent in advance, so that their arguments are rejected before they are even heard. This fallacy is often considered especially dangerous due to its silencing power. In their presentation, both authors argued that traditional approaches to this fallacy rest on an assumption of language neutrality according to which arguments can and should be identified and assessed independently of who the speaker is, and the meaning of words can and should be determined without reference to the speaker’s social identity.

However, they challenged this view, suggesting that only a non-neutral, socially aware conception of language allows us to properly identify genuine cases of poisoning the well—cases that truly silence marginalised voices. They argued that not all instances labelled as such are equally harmful. Only those that exploit identity-related vulnerabilities (e.g., race, gender) to dismiss a speaker’s contribution can be considered true cases of this silencing fallacy. Thus, the work presented by them points to a broader and highly important issue: fallacies can serve as barriers to argumentation not only when they actually occur, but also when accusations of fallacious reasoning are unfairly made. In some deliberative contexts, especially those involving marginalised groups, calling out a fallacy such as poisoning the well can itself function as a silencing tactic. This happens when the accusation is used to delegitimise speakers who are, in fact, simply asking to be heard and taken seriously.

The unfair norms in Argumentation

The second paper, presented by Amalia Haro and titled “Adversariality, Politeness, and Discursive Injustice in Argumentative Contexts“, explored how unfair norms of argumentation can shape the way people argue and lead to communicative injustices, such as misinterpreting or distorting a speaker’s words or intentions. These norms are not applied equally to all social groups, which can limit the participation of marginalised communities based on factors like race or gender. Haro’s analysis stresses the importance of paying attention to participants’ argumentative styles and how these interact with existing norms. Since argumentation plays a key role in both informal discussions and formal debates, it is particularly harmful when certain individuals are not recognized as legitimate arguers or when their contributions are dismissed. This points to the need for fair argumentative norms that allow everyone to be heard and taken seriously, regardless of their identity or style, and highlights how social identity can influence participation. Being aware of these patterns is crucial for supporting fair and inclusive argumentation in multicultural contexts.

The work on these topics is essential to the MultiPoD’s purposes and goals, as it contributes to the fundamental task of identifying various barriers to multicultural argumentation and equal participation in deliberative processes. Future work will continue to delve into these issues, allowing for a deeper understanding of how communicative practices can either hinder or foster inclusive and equitable forms of public discourse.