Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Argumentation and Fallacy in the Justification of the 2003 War on Iraq.Ahmed Sahlane - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (4):459-488.
    The present study examined how the pre-war debate of the US decision to invade Iraq (in March 2003) was discursively constructed in the US/British mainstream newspaper opinion/editorial (op/ed) argumentation. Drawing on theoretical insights from critical discourse analysis and argumentation theory, I problematised the fallacious discussion used in the pro-war op/eds to build up a ‘moral/legal case’ for war on Iraq based on adversarial (rather than dialogical) argumentation. The proponents of war deployed ‘instrumental rationality’ (ends-justify-means reasoning), ‘ethical necessity’ (Bush’s ‘Preemption Doctrine’) (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Guiding People to Interpret Their Experienced Difficulty as Importance Highlights Their Academic Possibilities and Improves Their Academic Performance.Daphna Oyserman, Kristen Elmore, Sheida Novin, Oliver Fisher & George C. Smith - 2018 - Frontiers in Psychology 9.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Affecting Argumentative Action: The Temporality of Decisive Emotion.Prins Marcus Valiant Lantz - 2021 - Argumentation 35 (4):603-627.
    This paper explores the interrelations between temporality and emotion in rhetorical argumentation. It argues that in situations of uncertainty argumentation affects action via appeals that invoke emotion and thereby translate the distant past and future into the situated present. Using practical inferences, a threefold model for the interrelation of emotion and time in argumentation outlines how argumentative action depends on whether speakers provide reasons for the exigence that makes a decision necessary, the contingency of the decision, and the confidence required (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Assessing the epistemic quality of democratic decision-making in terms of adequate support for conclusions.Henrik Friberg-Fernros & Johan Karlsson Schaffer - 2017 - Social Epistemology 31 (3):251-265.
    How can we assess the epistemic quality of democratic decision-making? Sceptics doubt such assessments are possible, as they must rely on controversial substantive standards of truth and rightness. Challenging that scepticism, this paper suggests a procedure-independent standard for assessing the epistemic quality of democratic decision-making by evaluating whether it is adequately supported by reasons. Adequate support for conclusion is a necessary aspect of epistemic quality for any epistemic justification of democracy, though particularly relevant to theories that emphasize public deliberation. Finding (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • An epistemic alternative to the public justification requirement.Henrik Friberg-Fernros & Johan Karlsson Schaffer - forthcoming - Philosophy and Social Criticism.
    How should the state justify its coercive rules? Public reason liberalism endorses a public justification requirement: Justifications offered for authoritative regulations must be acceptable to all members of the relevant public. However, as a criterion of legitimacy, the public justification requirement is epistemically unreliable: It prioritizes neither the exclusion of false beliefs nor the inclusion of true beliefs in justifications of political rules. This article presents an epistemic alternative to the public justification requirement. Employing epistemological theories of argumentation, we demonstrate (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•