Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Authority-based Argumentative Strategies: A Model for their Evaluation.Taeda Jovičić - 2004 - Argumentation 18 (1):1-24.
    In this paper, I try to develop an informal model for the analysis and evaluation of argumentative strategies based on active authorities. The explanations necessary to understand the idea of the model and what is modelled are given through the development of the paper. I first give an example of argumentative activities. After that, the main assumption of the model is given. In the third part, the relevant aspects of the argumentative activity are analysed, while the principles of the evaluation (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • New Concepts for Argument Evaluation.Taeda Jovicic - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Handbook of Argumentation Theory.Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2014 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • Dialogues in Argumentation.Von Burg Ron - 2016 - Windsor: University of Windsor.
    This volume focuses on dialogue and argumentation in contexts which are marked by truculence and discord. The contributors include well known argumentation scholars who discuss the issues this raises from the point of view of a variety of disciplines and points of view. The authors seek to address theoretically challenging issues in a way that is relevant to both the theory and the practice of argument. The collection brings together selected essays from the 2006 11th Wake Forest University Biennial Argumentation (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Defeasible reasoning and informal fallacies.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Synthese 179 (3):377 - 407.
    This paper argues that some traditional fallacies should be considered as reasonable arguments when used as part of a properly conducted dialog. It is shown that argumentation schemes, formal dialog models, and profiles of dialog are useful tools for studying properties of defeasible reasoning and fallacies. It is explained how defeasible reasoning of the most common sort can deteriorate into fallacious argumentation in some instances. Conditions are formulated that can be used as normative tools to judge whether a given defeasible (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Redes Dialéticas.Frank Thomas Sautter - 2023 - Veritas – Revista de Filosofia da Pucrs 68 (1):e44462.
    As Redes Dialéticas visam a representação dos elementos de uma disputa: as asserções do Proponente e do Oponente, e as ações de ataque e de defesa. Proponho uma representação diagramática – o Diagrama Dialético – e uma representação algébrica – o Grafo Dialético – das Redes Dialéticas. Este trabalho está limitado aos aspectos estático-estruturais das Redes Dialéticas.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law.Douglas Walton - 2005 - Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.
    Use of argumentation methods applied to legal reasoning is a relatively new field of study. The book provides a survey of the leading problems, and outlines how future research using argumentation-based methods show great promise of leading to useful solutions. The problems studied include not only these of argument evaluation and argument invention, but also analysis of specific kinds of evidence commonly used in law, like witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence and character evidence. New tools for analyzing these kinds (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  • Undoing things with words.Laura Caponetto - 2018 - Synthese 197 (6):2399-2414.
    Over the last five decades, philosophers of language have looked into the mechanisms for doing things with words. The same attention has not been devoted to how to undo those things, once they have been done. This paper identifies and examines three strategies to make one’s speech acts undone—namely, Annulment, Retraction, and Amendment. In annulling an act, a speaker brings to light its fatal flaws. Annulment amounts to recognizing an act as null, whereas retraction and amendment amount to making it (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  • (1 other version)The burden of criticism.Jan van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):201-224.
    Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convinc-ingly. Other critical reactions convey some or even all of the considerations that make the critic critical of the arguer’s position and direct the arguer to defuse or to at least contend with them. First, an explication of the notion of a critical reaction will be provided, zooming in on the degree of ‘directiveness’ that a critical reaction displays. Second, it will be examined whether (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Criticism in Need of Clarification.Jan Albert van Laar - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (4):401-423.
    It furthers the dialectic when the opponent is clear about what motivates and underlies her critical stance, even if she does not adopt an opposite standpoint, but merely doubts the proponent’s opinion. Thus, there is some kind of burden of criticism. In some situations, there should an obligation for the opponent to offer explanatory counterconsiderations, if requested, whereas in others, there is no real dialectical obligation, but a mere responsibility for the opponent to cooperate by providing her motivations for being (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Argument Schemes from the Point of View of Hamblin’s Dialectic.Jan Albert van Laar - 2011 - Informal Logic 31 (4):344-366.
    This paper aims at a normative account of non-deductive argumentation schemes in the spirit of Hamblin’s dialectical philosophy. First, three principles are presented that characterize Hamblin’s dialectical stance. Second, argumentation schemes, which have hardly been examined in Hamblin’s book Fallacies, shall be dealt with by applying these principles, taking an argumentation scheme from authority as the leading example. Third, a formal dialectical system, along the lines indicated by Hamblin, shall be developed that includes norms for using argumentation schemes and norms (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance.Jan Albert Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):201-224.
    Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convincingly. Other critical reactions convey some or even all of the considerations that make the critic critical of the arguer’s position and direct the arguer to defuse or to at least contend with them. First, an explication of the notion of a critical reaction will be provided, zooming in on the degree of “directiveness” that a critical reaction displays. Second, it will be examined whether (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Conversational Integrity: Argument, Commitment, and Compromise.Jan Albert van Laar - 2024 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 57 (3):306-318.
    ABSTRACT What does it mean to have and maintain a position of integrity when reasoning and arguing in a series of different kinds of dialogues? When participants in a critical discussion fail to reach an agreement on the rational merits of their response to a practical problem, they may remain hopeful of reaching a compromise solution in a negotiation dialogue that they perceive as the most rational one that is socially feasible. This article considers whether one’s commitments can be managed (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Dialectical Trade-Offs in the Design of Protocols for Comptuer-Mediated Deliberation.Marcin Lewiński - 2011 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 23 (36).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Douglas Walton, Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation: John Benjamins, Amsterdam/philadelphia, 2007, 307 pp.C. Andone - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (2):291-296.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Eight dialectic benchmarks discussed by two artificial localist disputors.Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk - 2001 - Synthese 127 (1-2):221 - 253.
    Dispute types can roughly be divided in two classes. One class in whichthe notion of justification is fundamental, and one in which thenotion of opposition is fundamental. Further, for every singledispute type there exist various types of protocols to conduct such adispute. Some protocols permit local search (a process in which oneis allowed to justify claims partially, with the possibility to extendjustifications on request later), while other protocols rely on globalsearch (a process in which only entire arguments count as justifications).This (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • (1 other version)The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):201-224.
    Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convincingly. Other critical reactions convey some or even all of the considerations that make the critic critical of the arguer’s position and direct the arguer to defuse or to at least contend with them. First, an explication of the notion of a critical reaction will be provided, zooming in on the degree of “directiveness” that a critical reaction displays. Second, it will be examined whether (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Retraction and Revocation in Agent Deliberation Dialogs.Peter McBurney & Simon Parsons - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (3):269-289.
    We present a generic denotational semantic framework for protocols for dialogs between rational and autonomous agents over action which allows for retraction and revocation of proposals for action. The semantic framework views participants in a deliberation dialog as jointly and incrementally manipulating the contents of shared spaces of action-intention tokens. The framework extends prior work by decoupling the identity of an agent who first articulates a proposal for action from the identity of any agent then empowered to retract or revoke (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Is there a burden of questioning?Douglas Walton - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (1):1-43.
    In some recent cases in Anglo-American law juries ruled contrary to an expert's testimony even though that testimony was never challenged, contradicted or questioned in the trial. These cases are shown to raise some theoretical questions about formal dialogue systems in computational dialectical systems for legal argumentation of the kind recently surveyed by Bench-Capon (1997) and Hage (2000) in this journal. In such systems, there is a burden of proof, meaning that if the respondent questions an argument, the proponent is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Beweislastverteilung und Intuitionen in philosophischen Diskursen.Thorsten Sander - 2003 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 34 (1):69-97.
    Allocating the burden of proof and intuitions in philosophical disputes.– This paper criticises the view that in philosophical disputes the onus probandi rests on those who advance a position that contradicts our basic intuitions. Such a rule for allocating the burden of proof may be an adequate reconstruction of everyday justification, but is unreasonable in the area of philosophy. In philosophy it is not only difficult to determine the plausibility of a proposition, at the same time contradictory claims may be (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation