Switch to: References

Citations of:

Straw Men, Iron Men, and Argumentative Virtue

Scott F. Aikin & John P. Casey

Topoi 35 (2):431-440 (2016)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.

Arguing with Children: Exploring Problems of Charity and Strawmanning.Swagatanjali Bauri - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (3):415-438.details This paper will highlight how the existing approaches to the Strawman Fallacy and the Principle of Charity are unable to fully accommodate the problems of interpreting children’s arguments. A lack of charity is as problematic as an excess of charity when arguing with children, and can contribute to misinterpretation of arguments. An application of moderate charity avoids the pitfalls of misrepresenting children. However, interpreting children’s arguments with the appropriate amount of charity is a challenging task. The argumentative context is relevant (...) Download Export citation Bookmark
Why We Need Skepticism in Argument: Skeptical Engagement as a Requirement for Epistemic Justice.Lucy Alsip Vollbrecht - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (2):269-285.details The Argumentative Adversariality debate is over the question of whether argument must be adversarial. A particular locus of this debate is on skeptical challenges in critical dialogue. The Default Skeptical Stance in argument is a practical manifestation of argumentative adversariality. Views about the on-the-ground value of the DSS vary. On one hand, in “The Social & Political Limitations of Philosophy”, Phyllis Rooney argues that the DSS leads to epistemic injustice. On the other, Allan Hazlett in his recent piece “Critical Injustice” (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 1 citation
Bothsiderism.Scott F. Aikin & John P. Casey - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (2):249-268.details This paper offers an account of a fallacy we will call bothsiderism, which is to mistake disagreement on an issue for evidence that either a compromise on, suspension of judgment regarding, or continued discussion of the issue is in order. Our view is that this is a fallacy of a unique and heretofore untheorized type, a fallacy of meta-argumentation. The paper develops as follows. After a brief introduction, we examine a recent bothsiderist case in American politics. We use this as (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 5 citations
Fooling the Victim: Of Straw Men and Those Who Fall for Them.Katharina Stevens - 2021 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 54 (2):109-127.details ABSTRACT This paper contributes to the debate about the strawman fallacy. It is the received view that strawmen are employed to fool not the arguer whose argument they distort, but instead a third party, an audience. I argue that strawmen that fool their victims exist and are an important variation of the strawman fallacy because of their special perniciousness. I show that those who are subject to hermeneutical lacunae or who have since forgotten parts of justifications they have provided earlier (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 4 citations
The Linguistic Formulation of Fallacies Matters: The Case of Causal Connectives.Jennifer Schumann, Sandrine Zufferey & Steve Oswald - 2020 - Argumentation 35 (3):361-388.details While the role of discourse connectives has long been acknowledged in argumentative frameworks, these approaches often take a coarse-grained approach to connectives, treating them as a unified group having similar effects on argumentation. Based on an empirical study of the straw man fallacy, we argue that a more fine-grained approach is needed to explain the role of each connective and illustrate their specificities. We first present an original corpus study detailing the main features of four causal connectives in French that (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 6 citations

1