Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. A Dialectical Analysis of the Ad Baculum Fallacy.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Informal Logic 34 (3):276-310.
    This paper applies dialectical argumentation structures to the problem of analyzing the ad baculum fallacy. It is shown how it is necessary in order to evaluate a suspected instance of the this fallacy to proceed through three levels of analysis: an inferential level, represented by an argument diagram, a speech act level, where conditions for specific types of speech acts are defined and applied, and a dialectical level where the first two levels are linked together and fitted into formal dialogue (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Lvov–Warsaw School as a Source of Inspiration for Argumentation Theory.Marcin Koszowy & Michał Araszkiewicz - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (3):283-300.
    The thesis of the paper holds that some future developments of argumentation theory may be inspired by the rich logico-methodological legacy of the Lvov–Warsaw School (LWS), the Polish research movement that was most active from 1895 to 1939. As a selection of ideas of the LWS which exploit both formal and pragmatic aspects of the force of argument, we present: Ajdukiewicz’s account of reasoning and inference, Bocheński’s analyses of superstitions or dogmas, and Frydman’s constructive approach to legal interpretation. This paper (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Precedential Ad Hominem in Polemical Exchange: Examples From the Israeli Political Debate.Eithan Orkibi - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (4):485-499.
    This article explores the modalities by which referring to past discursive performance of adversaries within a continuous polemical exchange is used in ad hominem attacks. Our starting point holds that in the context of lengthy debates, participants and third-party listeners share a rhetorical memory, which, dynamic and subjective as it may be, allows for the evaluation of participants’ characters based on their perceived discursive performances. By analysing opinion articles related to the Israeli political debate, this study shows how drawing inference (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Polish School of Argumentation: A Manifesto.Katarzyna Budzynska, Michal Araszkiewicz, Barbara Bogołȩbska, Piotr Cap, Tadeusz Ciecierski, Kamila Debowska-Kozlowska, Barbara Dunin-Kȩplicz, Marcin Dziubiński, Michał Federowicz, Anna Gomolińska, Andrzej Grabowski, Teresa Hołówka, Łukasz Jochemczyk, Magdalena Kacprzak, Paweł Kawalec, Maciej Kielar, Andrzej Kisielewicz, Marcin Koszowy, Robert Kublikowski, Piotr Kulicki, Anna Kuzio, Piotr Lewiński, Jakub Z. Lichański, Jacek Malinowski, Witold Marciszewski, Edward Nieznański, Janina Pietrzak, Jerzy Pogonowski, Tomasz A. Puczyłowski, Jolanta Rytel, Anna Sawicka, Marcin Selinger, Andrzej Skowron, Joanna Skulska, Marek Smolak, Małgorzata Sokół, Agnieszka Sowińska, Piotr Stalmaszczyk, Tomasz Stawecki, Jarosław Stepaniuk, Alina Strachocka, Wojciech Suchoń, Krzysztof Szymanek, Justyna Tomczyk, Robert Trypuz, Kazimierz Trzȩsicki, Mariusz Urbański, Ewa Wasilewska-Kamińska, Krzysztof A. Wieczorek, Maciej Witek, Urszula Wybraniec-Skardowska, Olena Yaskorska, Maria Załȩska, Konrad Zdanowski & Żure - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (3):267-282.
    Building on our diverse research traditions in the study of reasoning, language and communication, the Polish School of Argumentation integrates various disciplines and institutions across Poland in which scholars are dedicated to understanding the phenomenon of the force of argument. Our primary goal is to craft a methodological programme and establish organisational infrastructure: this is the first key step in facilitating and fostering our research movement, which joins people with a common research focus, complementary skills and an enthusiasm to work (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Processing Topics From the Beneficial Cognitive Model in Partially and Over-Successful Persuasion Dialogues.Kamila Debowska-Kozlowska - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (3):325-339.
    A persuasion dialogue is a dialogue in which a conflict between agents with respect to their points of view arises at the beginning of the talk and the agents have the shared, global goal of resolving the conflict and at least one agent has the persuasive aim to convince the other party to accept an opposing point of view. I argue that the persuasive force of argument may have not only extreme values but also intermediate strength. That is, I wish (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Witness Impeachment in Cross-Examination Using Ad Hominem Argumentation.Douglas Walton - 2018 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1):93-114.
    This paper combines methods of argumentation theory and artificial intelligence to extend existing work on the dialectical structure of crossexamination. The existing method used conflict diagrams to search for inconsistent statements in the testimony of a witness. This paper extends the method by using the inconsistency of commitments to draw an inference by the ad hominem argumentation scheme to the conclusion that the testimony is unreliable because of the bad ethical character for veracity of the witness.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • From Speech Acts to Semantics.Jim Mackenzie - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):121-142.
    Frege introduced the notion of pragmatic force as what distinguishes statements from questions. This distinction was elaborated by Wittgenstein in his later works, and systematised as an account of different kinds of speech acts in formal dialogue theory by Hamblin. It lies at the heart of the inferential semantics more recently developed by Brandom. The present paper attempts to sketch some of the relations between these developments.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Preface: From Pragmatics and Dialectics to Argument Studies.Katarzyna Budzynska, Frans H. Van Eemeren & Marcin Koszowy - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):7-22.
    Pragmatics and dialectics are two disciplines which have been amongst the first and most important partners for argument studies in the exploration of the complex realm of communication. Treating argumentation as a construct consisting of premises and conclusion allows for investigating some interesting properties of the phenomenon of reasoning, but does not capture a variety of aspects related to the usage of natural language and dialogical context in which real-life argumentation is typically embedded. This special issue explores some of the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Pressure and Argumentation in Public Controversies.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2019 - Informal Logic 39 (3):205-227.
    When can exerting pressure in a public controversy promote reasonable outcomes, and when is it rather a hindrance? We show how negotiation and persuasion dialogue can be intertwined. Then, we examine in what ways one can in a public controversy exert pressure on others through sanctions or rewards. Finally, we discuss from the viewpoints of persuasion and negotiation whether and, if so, how pressure hinders the achievement of a reasonable outcome.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation