Switch to: Citations

References in:

Arguments that Backfire

In D. Hitchcock & D. Farr (eds.), The Uses of Argument. OSSA. pp. 58-65 (2005)

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Coalescent argumentation.Michael A. Gilbert - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (5):837-852.
    Coalescent argumentation is a normative ideal that involves the joining together of two disparate claims through recognition and exploration of opposing positions. By uncovering the crucial connection between a claim and the attitudes, beliefs, feelings, values and needs to which it is connected dispute partners are able to identify points of agreement and disagreement. These points can then be utilized to effect coalescence, a joining or merging of divergent positions, by forming the basis for a mutual investigation of non-conflictual options (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   169 citations  
  • Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument.Ralph H. Johnson - 2000 - Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
    He further argues that it is necessary to rethink traditional conceptions of argument, and to find a position that avoids the limitations of both the highly abstract approach of formal logic and the highly contextualized approaches of rhetoric and communication theory.".
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   337 citations  
  • More on arguers and their dialectical obligations.Ralph H. Johnson - unknown
    In her 1997 OSSA paper, Trudy Govier discusses in detail my thesis that arguers have dialectical obligations. In a 1998 paper she further examines this thesis to see whether it is viable and concludes that it faces serious problems. In this paper, I assess the state of the thesis in light of Govier's discussion of it. I urge that we have something to gain from the empirical turn--from investigating best practices. At the end, I take a step back to ask (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Does intractable social disagreement stop argument in its tracks?John Woods - unknown
    It has been widely recognized since ancient times that a standard way to resolve disagreement is for one party to extract concessions from the other which he or she is less prepared to give up than his original thesis. Central to this methodology is specifying the various forms of consequence which bear on matters already conceded. Not all disagreements are responsive to this methodology. I shall speak of a class of disagreements as intractable when parties are unwilling to “split the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation