Switch to: References

Citations of:

Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation

New York: Cambridge University Press (2005)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. 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   37 citations  
  • The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial.Sanjay Modgil & Henry Prakken - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (1):31-62.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   67 citations  
  • Argument from Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2009 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2):154-182.
    Argument from analogy is a common and formidable form of reasoning in law and in everyday conversation. Although there is substantial literature on the subject, according to a recent survey ( Juthe 2005) there is little fundamental agreement on what form the argument should take, or on how it should be evaluated. Th e lack of conformity, no doubt, stems from the complexity and multiplicity of forms taken by arguments that fall under the umbrella of analogical reasoning in argumentation, dialectical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  • Argument Has No Function.Jean Goodwin - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (1):69-90.
    Douglas Walton has been right in calling us to attend to the pragmatics of argument. He has, however, also insisted that arguments should be understood and assessed by considering the functions they perform; and from this, I dissent. Argument has no determinable function in the sense Walton needs, and even if it did, that function would not ground norms for argumentative practice. As an alternative to a functional theory of argumentative pragmatics, I propose a design view, which draws attention to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   51 citations  
  • A normative framework for argument quality: argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation.Ulrike Hahn & Jos Hornikx - 2016 - Synthese 193 (6):1833-1873.
    In this paper, it is argued that the most fruitful approach to developing normative models of argument quality is one that combines the argumentation scheme approach with Bayesian argumentation. Three sample argumentation schemes from the literature are discussed: the argument from sign, the argument from expert opinion, and the appeal to popular opinion. Limitations of the scheme-based treatment of these argument forms are identified and it is shown how a Bayesian perspective may help to overcome these. At the same time, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  • International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching.Michael R. Matthews (ed.) - 2014 - Springer.
    This inaugural handbook documents the distinctive research field that utilizes history and philosophy in investigation of theoretical, curricular and pedagogical issues in the teaching of science and mathematics. It is contributed to by 130 researchers from 30 countries; it provides a logically structured, fully referenced guide to the ways in which science and mathematics education is, informed by the history and philosophy of these disciplines, as well as by the philosophy of education more generally. The first handbook to cover the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • A dialectical approach to presupposition.Fabrizio Macagno - 2018 - Intercultural Pragmatics 15 (2):291-313.
    This paper advances an approach to presupposition rooted in the concept of commitment, a dialectical notion weaker than truth and belief. It investigates ancient medieval dialectical theories and develops the insights thereof for analyzing how presuppositions are evaluated and why a proposition is presupposed. In particular, at a pragmatic level, presuppositions are reconstructed as the conclusions of implicit arguments from presumptive reasoning, grounded on presumptions of different type and nature. A false (or rather unaccepted) presupposition can be thus represented as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Developing argumentation strategies in electronic dialogs: Is modeling effective?Fabrizio Macagno, Elizabeth Mayweg-Paus & Deanna Kuhn - 2015 - Discourse Processes 53 (4):280-297.
    The study presented here examines how interacting with a more capable interlocutor influences use of argumentation strategies in electronic discourse. To address this question, 54 young adolescents participating in an intervention centered on electronic peer dialogs were randomly assigned to either an experimental or control condition. In both conditions, pairs who held the same position on a social issue engaged in a series of electronic dialogs with pairs who held an opposing position. In the experimental condition, in some dialogs, unbeknownst (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Authority Argument Schemes, Types, and Critical Questions.Frank Zenker & Shiyang Yu - 2023 - Argumentation 37 (1):25-51.
    Authority arguments generate support for claims by appealing to an agent’s authority status, rather than to reasons independent of it. With few exceptions, the current literature on argument schemes acknowledges two basic authority types. The _epistemic_ type grounds in knowledge, the_ deontic_ type grounds in power. We review how historically earlier scholarship acknowledged an_ attractiveness-based_ and a _majority-based_ authority type as equally basic type. Crossing these with basic speech act types thus yields authority argument sub-schemes. Focusing on the_ epistemic-assertive_ sub-scheme (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Argument relevance and structure. Assessing and developing students’ uses of evidence.Fabrizio Macagno - 2016 - International Journal of Educational Research 79:180–194.
    The purpose of this paper is to show whether the two crucial dimensions used for assessing the quality of argumentation, argument-as-a-product (argument structure) and argument-as-a-process (relevance), are interrelated, and how they can be used to assess the effect of argumentative mode on students’ arguments. To this purpose, a twofold coding scheme will be developed, aimed at capturing: a) the argumentative function of evidence use and b) the dialogical relevance of evidence use. A study will be described in which students’ use (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • How Dialogic Settings Influence Evidence Use in Adolescent Students.Fabrizio Macagno & Elizabeth Mayweg-Paus - 2016 - Zeitschrift Für Padagogische Psychologie 30:121-132.
    This study examines how evidence is used differently in argumentative discourse compared to individual arguments. Applying a 1×2 crossover study design, 37 secondary school students were asked either to discuss a social issue with their partner before individually writing an essay outlining their opinion or, vice versa, first to discuss and then to write. As background information, they were provided with pieces of evidence with different levels of quality. Dialogs and essays were analyzed regarding (a) the type of evidence and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • The Presumptions of Meaning. Hamblin and Equivocation.Fabrizio Macagno - 2011 - Informal Logic 31 (4):367-393.
    When we use a word, we face a crucial epistemic gap: we ground our move on the fact that our interlocutor knows the meaning of the word we used, and therefore he can interpret our dialogical intention. However, how is it possible to know the other’s mind? Hamblin explained this dialogical problem advancing the idea of dialectical meaning: on his view, the use of a word is based on a set of presumptions. Building on this approach, the use of a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Dialectical Relevance and Dialogical Context in Walton’s Pragmatic Theory.Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (2):102-128.
    The notions of types of dialogue and dialectical relevance are central themes in Walton’s work and the grounds for a dialectical approach to many fallacies. After outlining the dialogue models constituting the background of Walton’s account, this article presents the concepts of dialectical relevance and dialogue shifts in their application to biased argumentation, fallacious moves, and illicit argumentative strategies. Showing the different dialectical proposals Walton advanced in several studies on argumentation as a development of a dialogical system, it has proved (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • The Authority of the Fallacies Approach to Argument Evaluation.Catherine Hundleby - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (3):279-308.
    Popular textbook treatments of the fallacies approach to argument evaluation employ the Adversary Method identified by Janice Moulton (1983) that takes the goal of argumentation to be the defeat of other arguments and that narrows the terms of discourse in order to facilitate such defeat. My analysis of the textbooks shows that the Adversary Method operates as a Kuhnian paradigm in philosophy, and demonstrates that the popular fallacies pedagogy is authoritarian in being unresponsive to the scholarly developments in informal logic (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Argumentation profiles and the manipulation of common ground. The arguments of populist leaders on Twitter.Fabrizio Macagno - 2022 - Journal of Pragmatics 191:67-82.
    The detection of hate speech and fake news in political discourse is at the same time a crucial necessity for democratic societies and a challenge for several areas of study. However, most of the studies have focused on what is explicitly stated: false article information, language that expresses hatred, derogatory expressions. This paper argues that the explicit dimension of manipulation is only one – and the least problematic – of the risks of political discourse. The language of the unsaid is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Argumentative Structure of Persuasive Definitions.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2008 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (5):525-549.
    In this paper we present an analysis of persuasive definition based on argumentation schemes. Using the medieval notion of differentia and the traditional approach to topics, we explain the persuasiveness of emotive terms in persuasive definitions by applying the argumentation schemes for argument from classification and argument from values. Persuasive definitions, we hold, are persuasive because their goal is to modify the emotive meaning denotation of a persuasive term in a way that contains an implicit argument from values. However, our (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Wrenching from Context: The Manipulation of Commitments.Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (3):283-317.
    This article analyses the fallacy of wrenching from context, using the dialectical notions of commitment and implicature as tools. The data, a set of key examples, is used to sharpen the conceptual borderlines around the related fallacies of straw man, accent, misquotation, and neglect of qualifications. According to the analysis, the main characteristics of wrenching from context are the manipulation of the meaning of the other’s statement through devices such as the use of misquotations, selective quotations, and quoting out of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • (1 other version)Towards a theory of mathematical argument.Ian J. Dove - 2013 - In Andrew Aberdein & Ian J. Dove (eds.), The Argument of Mathematics. Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer. pp. 291--308.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation.David Zarefsky - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (3):317-330.
    Although political argumentation is not institutionalized in a formal sense, it does have recurrent patterns and characteristics. Its constraints include the absence of time limits, the lack of a clear terminus, heterogeneous audiences, and the assumption that access is open to all. These constraints make creative strategic maneuvering both possible and necessary. Among the common types of strategic maneuvering are changing the subject, modifying the relevant audience, appealing to liberal and conservative presumptions, reframing the argument, using condensation symbols, employing the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  • Reasoning from Classifications and Definitions.Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (1):81-107.
    In this paper we analyze the uses and misuses of argumentation schemes from verbal classification, and show how argument from definition supports argumentation based on argument from verbal classification. The inquiry has inevitably included the broader study of the concept of definition. The paper presents the schemes for argument from classification and for argument from definition, and shows how the latter type of argument so typically supports the former. The problem of analyzing arguments based on classification is framed in a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Annotating Argument Schemes.Jacky Visser, John Lawrence, Chris Reed, Jean Wagemans & Douglas Walton - 2020 - Argumentation 35 (1):101-139.
    Argument schemes are abstractions substantiating the inferential connection between premise(s) and conclusion in argumentative communication. Identifying such conventional patterns of reasoning is essential to the interpretation and evaluation of argumentation. Whether studying argumentation from a theory-driven or data-driven perspective, insight into the actual use of argumentation in communicative practice is essential. Large and reliably annotated corpora of argumentative discourse to quantitatively provide such insight are few and far between. This is all the more true for argument scheme corpora, which tend (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • In memoriam Douglas N. Walton: the influence of Doug Walton on AI and law.Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Floris Bex, Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken, Giovanni Sartor & Bart Verheij - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 28 (3):281-326.
    Doug Walton, who died in January 2020, was a prolific author whose work in informal logic and argumentation had a profound influence on Artificial Intelligence, including Artificial Intelligence and Law. He was also very interested in interdisciplinary work, and a frequent and generous collaborator. In this paper seven leading researchers in AI and Law, all past programme chairs of the International Conference on AI and Law who have worked with him, describe his influence on their work.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Creative Argumentation: When and Why People Commit the Metaphoric Fallacy.Francesca Ervas, Antonio Ledda, Amitash Ojha, Giuseppe Antonio Pierro & Bipin Indurkhya - 2018 - Frontiers in Psychology 9.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • (1 other version)Towards a theory of mathematical argument.Ian J. Dove - 2009 - Foundations of Science 14 (1-2):136-152.
    In this paper, I assume, perhaps controversially, that translation into a language of formal logic is not the method by which mathematicians assess mathematical reasoning. Instead, I argue that the actual practice of analyzing, evaluating and critiquing mathematical reasoning resembles, and perhaps equates with, the practice of informal logic or argumentation theory. It doesn’t matter whether the reasoning is a full-fledged mathematical proof or merely some non-deductive mathematical justification: in either case, the methodology of assessment overlaps to a large extent (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation.Francesca Ervas - 2021 - Frontiers in Psychology 12:628460.
    In argumentation, metaphors are often considered as ambiguous or deceptive uses of language leading to fallacies of reasoning. However, they can also provide useful insights into creative argumentation, leading to genuinely new knowledge. Metaphors entail a framing effect that implicitly provides a specific perspective to interpret the world, guiding reasoning and evaluation of arguments. In the same vein, emotions could be in sharp contrast with proper reasoning, but they can also be cognitive processes of affective framing, influencing our reasoning and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Persuasive Definitions: Values, Meanings and Implicit Disagreements.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (3):203-228.
    The purpose of this paper is to inquire into the relationship between persuasive definition and common knowledge (propositions generally accepted and not subject to dispute in a discussion). We interpret the gap between common knowledge and persuasive definition (PD) in terms of potential disagreements: PDs are conceived as implicit arguments to win a potential conflict. Persuasive definitions are analyzed as arguments instantiating two argumentation schemes, argument from classification and argument from values, and presupposing a potential disagreement. The argumentative structure of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Dialogue Types, Argumentation Schemes, and Mathematical Practice: Douglas Walton and Mathematics.Andrew Aberdein - 2021 - Journal of Applied Logics 8 (1):159-182.
    Douglas Walton’s multitudinous contributions to the study of argumentation seldom, if ever, directly engage with argumentation in mathematics. Nonetheless, several of the innovations with which he is most closely associated lend themselves to improving our understanding of mathematical arguments. I concentrate on two such innovations: dialogue types (§1) and argumentation schemes (§2). I argue that both devices are much more applicable to mathematical reasoning than may be commonly supposed.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Ethics of Argumentation.Vasco Correia - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (2):222-241.
    Normative theories of argumentation tend to assume that logical and dialectical rules suffice to ensure the rationality of argumentative discourse. Yet, in everyday debates people use arguments that seem valid in light of such rules but nonetheless biased and tendentious. This article seeks to show that the rationality of argumentation can only be fully promoted if we take into account its ethical dimension. To substantiate this claim, I review some of the empirical evidence indicating that people’s inferential reasoning is systematically (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • The winter, the summer and the summer dream of artificial intelligence in law: Presidential address to the 18th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law.Enrico Francesconi - 2022 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 30 (2):147-161.
    This paper reflects my address as IAAIL president at ICAIL 2021. It is aimed to give my vision of the status of the AI and Law discipline, and possible future perspectives. In this respect, I go through different seasons of AI research : from the Winter of AI, namely a period of mistrust in AI, to the Summer of AI, namely the current period of great interest in the discipline with lots of expectations. One of the results of the first (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • On the Rationale for Distinguishing Arguments from Explanations.Matthew W. McKeon - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):283-303.
    Even with the lack of consensus on the nature of an argument, the thesis that explanations and arguments are distinct is near orthodoxy in well-known critical thinking texts and in the more advanced argumentation literature. In this paper, I reconstruct two rationales for distinguishing arguments from explanations. According to one, arguments and explanations are essentially different things because they have different structures. According to the other, while some explanations and arguments may have the same structure, they are different things because (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Argumentation and Explanation in Conceptual Change: Indications From Protocol Analyses of Peer‐to‐Peer Dialog.Christa S. C. Asterhan & Baruch B. Schwarz - 2009 - Cognitive Science 33 (3):374-400.
    In this paper we attempt to identify which peer collaboration characteristics may be accountable for conceptual change through interaction. We focus on different socio‐cognitive aspects of the peer dialog and relate these with learning gains on the dyadic as well as the individual level. The scientific topic that was used for this study concerns natural selection, a topic for which students’ intuitive conceptions have been shown to be particularly robust. Learning tasks were designed according to the socio‐cognitive conflict instructional paradigm. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Sic Sat. pp. 769-777.
    The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Modality and its Conversational Backgrounds in the Reconstruction of Argumentation.Andrea Rocci - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (2):165-189.
    The paper considers the role of modality in the rational reconstruction of standpoints and arguments. The paper examines in what conditions modal markers can act as argumentative indicators and what kind of cues they provide for the reconstruction of argument. The paper critically re-examines Toulmin’s hypothesis that the meaning of the modals can be analyzed in terms of a field-invariant argumentative force and field-dependent criteria in the light of the Theory of Relative Modality developed within linguistic semantics, showing how this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • A Carneades reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi.Thomas F. Gordon & Douglas Walton - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):37-56.
    Carneades is an open source argument mapping application and a programming library for building argumentation support tools. In this paper, Carneades’ support for argument reconstruction, evaluation and visualization is illustrated by modeling most of the factual and legal arguments in Popov v Hayashi.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Reconstructing Complex Pro/Con Argumentation.André Juthe - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (3):413-454.
    Wellman identified three types of conductive arguments, the third of which contains both pro and counter-considerations in the same piece of reasoning. This paper provides a pragma-dialectical analysis of this type of argumentation, with special focus on argumentation reconstruction. It argues that the account of pro/con argumentation in the framework of argument-as-product has problems solvable by a pragma-dialectical approach. The paper asserts that pro/con argumentation should be analyzed as a dialectical strategy of a protagonist, where acknowledgement of counter-considerations shows that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Argumentation Theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies.Fabrizio Macagno, Elisabeth Mayweg-Paus & Deanna Kuhn - 2015 - Topoi 34 (2):523-537.
    This paper is aimed at combining the advances in argumentation theory with the models used in the field of education to address the issue of improving students’ argumentative behavior by interacting with an expert. The concept of deeper or more sophisticated argumentative strategy is theoretically defined and used to advance two new coding schemes, based on the advances in the argumentation studies and aimed at capturing the dialectical, or structural, behavior, and the argumentative content of each dialogue unit. These coding (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • The Argument Web: an Online Ecosystem of Tools, Systems and Services for Argumentation.Mark Snaith, Alison Pease, John Lawrence, Barbara Konat, Mathilde Janier, Rory Duthie, Katarzyna Budzynska & Chris Reed - 2017 - Philosophy and Technology 30 (2):137-160.
    The Argument Web is maturing as both a platform built upon a synthesis of many contemporary theories of argumentation in philosophy and also as an ecosystem in which various applications and application components are contributed by different research groups around the world. It already hosts the largest publicly accessible corpora of argumentation and has the largest number of interoperable and cross compatible tools for the analysis, navigation and evaluation of arguments across a broad range of domains, languages and activity types. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Reporting and Interpreting Intentions in Defamation Law.Fabrizio Macagno - 2015 - In Alessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer & Franco Lo Piparo (eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: interdisciplinary studies. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 593-619.
    The interpretation and the indirect reporting of a speaker’s communicative intentions lie at the crossroad between pragmatics, argumentation theory, and forensic linguistics. Since the leading case Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., in the United States the legal problem of determining the truth of a quotation is essentially equated with the correctness of its indirect reporting, i.e. the representation of the speaker’s intentions. For this reason, indirect reports are treated as interpretations of what the speaker intends to communicate. Theoretical considerations, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Definitions in law.Fabrizio Macagno - 2010 - Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée 2:199-217.
    Legal definitions will be examined from three perspectives: their pragmatic function, their propositional structure, and their argumentative role. In law, definitions can be used for different pragmatic purposes: they can be uttered to describe a concept, or to establish a new meaning for a term. The propositional content of definitional speech acts can be different. In law, like in ordinary conversation, there might be different types of definition: we can define by providing examples, or showing the fundamental characteristics of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Dialectical Models of Deliberation, Problem Solving and Decision Making.Douglas Walton, Alice Toniolo & Timothy J. Norman - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (2):163-205.
    Hamblin distinguished between formal and descriptive dialectic. Formal normative models of deliberation dialogue have been strongly emphasized as argumentation frameworks in computer science. But making such models of deliberation applicable to real natural language examples has reached a point where the descriptive aspect needs more interdisciplinary work. The new formal and computational models of deliberation dialogue that are being built in computer science seem to be closely related to some already existing and very well established computing technologies such as problem (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Argumentative approach to "framing": framing, deliberation and action in an environmental conflict.Isabela Fairclough & Irina Diana Madroane - 2020 - Co-herencia 17 (32):119-158.
    This article proposes a new theorization of the concept of framing or framework, in which the argumentation plays a fundamental role. When we talk about making decisions, framing a matter involves offering the audience a prominent and therefore possibly paramount premise in a deliberative process that allows to substantiate as much of the decision as the action. The analysis focuses on the case of The Public Policy Controversy, which, over the years, became a socio-environmental movement and which, in September 2013, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Presuppositional Fallacies.Fabrizio Macagno - 2024 - Argumentation 38 (2):109-140.
    Presuppositions are at the same time a crucial and almost neglected dimension of arguments and fallacies. Arguments involve different types of presuppositions, which can be used for manipulative purposes in distinct ways. However, what are presuppositions? What is their dialectical function? Why and how can they be dangerous? This paper intends to address these questions by developing the pragmatic approaches to presupposition from a dialectical perspective. The use of presuppositions will be analyzed in terms of presumptive conclusions concerning the interlocutor’s (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Bootstrapping and Persuasive Argumentation.Guido Melchior - 2024 - Argumentation 38 (2).
    That bootstrapping and Moorean reasoning fail to instantiate persuasive argumentation is an often informally presented but not systematically developed view. In this paper, I will argue that this unpersuasiveness is not determined by principles of justification transmission but by two straightforward principles of rationality, understood as a concept of internal coherence. First, it is rational for S to believe the conclusion of an argument because of the argument, only if S believes sufficiently many premises of the argument. Second, if S (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentum ad Verecundiam: New Gender-based Criteria for Appeals to Authority.Michelle Ciurria & Khameiel Altamimi - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (4):437-452.
    In his influential work on critical argumentation, Douglas Walton explains how to judge whether an argumentum ad verecundiam is fallacious or legitimate. He provides six critical questions and a number of ancillary sub-questions to guide the identification of reasonable appeals to authority. While it is common for informal logicians to acknowledge the role of bias in sampling procedures and hypothesis confirmation , there is a conspicuous lack of discourse on the effect of identity prejudice on judgments of authority, even though (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Virtue and Arguers.José Ángel Gascón - 2016 - Topoi 35 (2):441-450.
    Is a virtue approach in argumentation possible without committing the ad hominem fallacy? My answer is affirmative, provided that the object study of our theory is well delimited. My proposal is that a theory of argumentative virtue should not focus on argument appraisal, as has been assumed, but on those traits that make an individual achieve excellence in argumentative practices. An agent-based approach in argumentation should be developed, not in order to find better grounds for argument appraisal, but to gain (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Arguments from Ostension.Hubert Marraud - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (3):309-327.
    My purpose here is to describe a type of argument characterized by the fact that one of its premises is a directive—i.e. what is expressed by a directive sentence: a general instruction how to proceed or act. This directive premise brings an ostensive mechanism for the inclusion of visual or multimodal elements in an argument. If an argument is an invitation to inference, by using such a directive utterance the addresser is inviting the addressee to make an inference from an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Questions, Presuppositions and Fallacies.Andrei Moldovan - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (2):287-303.
    In this paper I focus on the fallacy known as Complex Question or Many Questions. After a brief introduction, in Sect. 2 I highlight its pragmatic dimension, and in Sect. 3 its dialectical dimension. In Sect. 4 I present two accounts of this fallacy developed in argumentation theory, Douglas Walton’s and the Pragma-Dialectics’, which have resources to capture both its pragmatic and its dialectical nature. However, these accounts are unsatisfactory for various reasons. In Sect. 5 I focus on the pragmatic (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Whately on Arguments Involving Authority.Hans V. Hansen - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (3):319-340.
    Richard Whately’s views of arguments involving authority are very different in his Elements of Rhetoric and his Elements of Logic. This essay begins by documenting these differences and wondering why they are. It then proceeds to take a broader and more historical view of Whately’s discussions of authority and finds him occupying an important developmental ground between his predecessor Locke and contemporary views of the argument from authority. In fact, some of the things we now think are important in a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Mining Arguments From 19th Century Philosophical Texts Using Topic Based Modelling.John Lawrence, Chris Reed, Simon McAlister, Andrew Ravenscroft, Colin Allen & David Bourget - 2014 - In Nancy Green, Kevin Ashley, Diane Litman, Chris Reed & Vern Walker (eds.), Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining. Baltimore, USA: pp. 79-87.
    In this paper we look at the manual analysis of arguments and how this compares to the current state of automatic argument analysis. These considerations are used to develop a new approach combining a machine learning algorithm to extract propositions from text, with a topic model to determine argument structure. The results of this method are compared to a manual analysis.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • When Evaluative Adjectives Prevent Contradiction in a Debate.Thierry Herman & Diane Liberatore - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (2):155-176.
    This paper argues that some words are so highly charged with meaning by a community that they may prevent a discussion during which each participant is on an equal footing. These words are indeed either unanimously accepted or rejected. The presence of these adjectival groups pushes the antagonist to find rhetorical strategies to circumvent them. The main idea we want to develop is that some propositions are not easily debatable in context because of some specific value-bearing words, and one of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation