Argumentation's claim to neutrality is the part that does the hidden work

The argument

Proponents of this position argue that the decisive ethical variable is whether the audience knows what is being attempted, and that on this measure persuasion is the more honest of the two. An avowed persuader announces an interest in moving people. The audience knows it, discounts accordingly, and remains on guard. Argumentation presents itself as the mere laying out of reasons, and proponents argue that this presentation is itself a technique, and the most effective one available. The mechanism is the lowering of the audience's defences. Scrutiny is expensive and people apply it where they expect influence. Told that someone is trying to convince them, they examine what is said. Told that they are being walked through the reasoning, they attend to the steps and not to the selection, which is where the work has been done. Proponents argue that the arguer's choice of what to include, what to count as obvious and which objection to treat as marginal shapes the conclusion more than any individual step does, and that the neutral frame is what keeps those choices out of view. Proponents add that the asymmetry is reflected in how each practice is received afterwards. A person who realises they were persuaded feels they were worked on, which is unpleasant but clarifying, and they can revisit the question. A person who was led by a selectively constructed argument generally concludes that they followed the reasoning and arrived at the truth themselves, and has no occasion to revisit anything. On this account the deeper ethical problem lies with the practice that leaves its subject unaware of having been moved at all.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics argue that persuasion is far less candid than the account allows, since much of it is designed to be taken for something else, including for disinterested reasoning. They add that argumentation does not claim neutrality about its conclusion but only about its method, and that a stated conclusion with reasons attached is the most transparent form an attempt at influence can take. Others object that the account rewards a practice for its reputation rather than its conduct: if audiences are on guard against persuasion and not against argument, that is a fact about audiences which a persuader may exploit as easily as an arguer.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Critics deny that awareness is the decisive variable. A person who knows they are being worked on may still be worked on effectively, and consent to being persuaded is not consent to the particular means used, so knowledge settles less than the premise claims. [Rejecting P2] The premise is disputed as a description of either practice. A great deal of persuasion is designed to pass as something else, and argumentation does not claim neutrality about its conclusion, which is stated openly along with the reasons for it. [Rejecting P3] Critics argue that selection is more exposed in argumentation than the premise allows. An argument's omissions can be identified and supplied by anyone who knows the subject, whereas the selection behind a persuasive appeal typically leaves no trace to be audited.