Many standard definitions of ‘argument’ that recognise an ambiguity between its active and objective senses seek to subsume these in various ways into a single, composite whole. This, it is argued, glosses over the distinction instead of exploiting its elucidatory potential. Whilst optimistic about the prospects of theory integration, the paper recommends a methodology of differentiation as a first necessary step towards any such goal. It starts by assuming that ‘argument’ refers —simultaneously and independently— to two different things, making space (...) between them for a theory of argument based on the then necessary externality of the relation between them. (shrink)

On the standard view, all presumptions share the same deontic function: they asymmetrically allocate the burden of proof. But what, exactly, does this function amount to? Once presumptions are rejected, do they place the burden of arguing, the burden of explanation, or the most general burden of reasoning on their opponents? In this paper, I take into account the differences between cognitive and practical presumptions and argue that the standard accounts of deontic function are at least ambiguous, and likely implausible. (...) As a result, they require qualifications. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to present a case for the value of argumentation as an instrument of rational persuasion in doctor-patient (and general health professional–patient) communication. By doing so, I also emphasize the value of argumentation theory—as a body of knowledge devoted to the study of argumentation—both to enrich the study of doctor-patient communication and to enhance its quality by contributing to dedicated training courses for health professionals and patient education interventions. Argumentation is used in health professional–patient interactions, (...) and its significance in this context has been acknowledged in recent literature (see the collection of articles in Rubinelli and .. (shrink)

This article shows how epideictic rhetoric and argumentation may be interrelated in a general-interest newspaper framed as a single discourse produced by a collective author. In more specific terms, the view advanced here is that newspaper as whole has an epideictic dimension which, in terms of argumentation, is the fundamental or predominant one. The usefulness of this approach is twofold. In terms of rhetoric, to explore the applicability of epideictic rhetoric to journalistic discourse; and in the field of journalism studies, (...) the goal is to draw on the theory of epideictic rhetoric so as to refine the conceptualization of the nature of argumentation in the newspaper as such. Given this twofold perspective, the account of newspaper discursive practices will be general, and the classical and contemporary epideictic theory will be briefly summarized. However, the outcome of this analysis is an example of a fruitful encounter between the two fields. (shrink)

How does propaganda differ from the legitimate persuasive practices that animate a healthy democracy? The question is especially salient as digital technologies facilitate new modes of political persuasion and the public square saturates with information factual and fabricated alike. In answer, we propose a typology based on the rhetorical strategies that propaganda and its legitimate counterpart each employ. We argue that the point of contrast between the phenomena turns on two key features: whether the rhetorical strategy sufficiently engages our deliberative (...) capacities, and whether it runs counter to our epistemic interests. While in practice the boundary between the concepts is not always sharp, the account identifies a set of conceptual tools that help better frame and come to grips with propaganda and legitimate political persuasion in an information-dense and increasingly complex media landscape. (shrink)

In his paper, “Missed Opportunities in Argument Evaluation,” Daniel Cohen has in his sights a “curious” asymmetry in how we evaluate arguments: while we criticize arguments for failing to point out obvious objections to the proposed line of reasoning, we do not consider it critically culpable to fail to take into account arguments for the position. Cohen views this omission as a missed opportunity, for which he lays the blame largely at the metaphorical feet of the “Dominant Adversarial Model” of (...) argumentation – the DAM account. We argue here that, while Cohen criticizes the DAM account for conceptualizing arguments as essentially agonistic, he accepts its basic framing and does not follow his critique where it leads. In so doing, he misses the opportunity to develop an alternative, non-adversarial account of argumentation which would avoid his criticism of how we evaluate arguments. (shrink)