In 2018, three journalists accused one of the Members of the Russian Parliament
of harassment at workplace. Many influential persons of the Russian elite
engaged themselves in the public discussion of the conflict. We studied that
high-profiled discussion using a hybrid method merging human- and logicoriented approaches in argumentation studies. The method develops ideas of the
new dialectics, the argumentation logic and the logical-cognitive approach to
argumentation, on which is based the algorithm for determining of dispute
resolution by aggregating formal and informal tools of analysis. We have
reconstructed the discussion as two disputes about questions A and B. A: Did
the MP violate the code of conduct by making statements or actions against the
journalists? B: Are actions like the behavior of the MP harassment? The opinions
of the discussion participants were grouped into the four points of view: A1 –
the MP did not violate the code of conduct, A2 – the MP violated the code of
conduct, B3 – the actions are not harassment, B4 – the actions are harassment.
We mapped arguments in support or against each of them using OVA software,
evaluated the arguments with the help of the critical questions, a tool proposed
in the new dialectics, and determined the ultimate A + B resolution by applying
of the algorithm that combines elements of gradual and labelling semantics from
the argumentation logic and the classification of disputes from the dialectical
approaches. The resolution was a subset of four arguments that ensured the
victory of A1+B4. However, the substantial incompatibility of those arguments
highlighted a deep disagreement, an unresolvable difference of opinion, between
the parties about the permissibility of courtship. The deep disagreement, a bonus
result yielded by the application of the hybrid method, excluded the
interpretation of the determined resolution as convincing for the parties, but
pointed out a way to smooth the difference of opinions by elaborating of legal,
social and moral aspects of the problem of harassment at workplace.
Translated title of the contributionКак поиск и отбор решений аргументативного спора раскрыл глубокое разногласие по поводу домогательств
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages15
JournalStudia Humana
Volume11
Issue number3
StatePublished - Dec 2022

    Research areas

  • argumentation logic, new dialectic, evaluation of arguments, logical-cognitive approach to argumentation, computing of dispute outcomes

    Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy

ID: 101482838