Vol.:(0123456789) Argumentation https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9473-y 1 3 Standing Standpoints and Argumentative Associates: What is at Stake in a Public Political Argument? Dima Mohammed 1 © Springer Nature B.V. 2018 Abstract In today’s ‘networked’ public sphere, arguers are faced with countless controversies roaming out there. Knowing what is at stake at any point in time, and keeping under control the contribution one’s arguments make to the diferent interrelated issues requires careful craft (e.g. Mohammed and Zarefsky, in Feteris, Garssen and Snoeck Henkemans (eds) Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2011). In this paper, I explore the dif- fculty of determining what is at stake at any moment of the argumentative situation and explore the challenge that that creates for examining the strategic shape of argu- ments. I argue that a meaningful examination of networked argumentative encoun- ters requires that the boundaries of an encounter remain ‘fuid. In dealing with the fuid boundaries, I suggest to identify “argumentative associates” and “standing standpoints”. Keywords Argumentative associate · Argumentative potential · Commitments · Multiple issues · Public arguments · Standing standpoint · Strategic manoeuvring 1 Introduction The main characteristics of political argumentation identifed by Zarefsky (2008) tell us a great deal about the complexity of this intriguing practice. Political argumenta- tion lacks time limits, lacks a clear terminus, features a heterogeneous audience, and is characterised by open access. The complexity of the practice is not just a chal- lenge for arguers, who as Zarefsky tells us, have no option but to manoeuvre strate- gically as they argue. It is also a challenge for argumentation scholars who strive to * Dima Mohammed d.mohammed@fsch.unl.pt http://www.iflnova.pt http://www.fcsh.unl.pt 1 ArgLab-IFILNOVA, NOVA FCSH, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Av. de Berna, 26, Edifício I&D, 1069-061 Lisbon, Portugal