Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Corpus Linguistics Methods in the Study of (Meta)Argumentation.Martin Hinton - 2021 - Argumentation 35 (3):435-455.
    As more and more sophisticated software is created to allow the mining of arguments from natural language texts, this paper sets out to examine the suitability of the well-established and readily available methods of corpus linguistics to the study of argumentation. After brief introductions to corpus linguistics and the concept of meta-argument, I describe three pilot-studies into the use of the terms Straw man, Ad hominem, and Slippery slope, made using the open access News on the Web corpus. The presence (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum Ad Hominem.Frans H. Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):141-159.
    This article aims tt providing some conceptual tools for dealing adequately with relevance in argumentative discourse. For this purpose, argumentative relevance is defined as a functional interactional relation between certain elements in the discourse. In addition to the distinction between interpretive and evaluative relevance that can be traced in the literature, analytic relevance is introduced as an intermediary concept. In order to classify the various problems of relevance arising in interpreting, analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse, a taxonomy is proposed in (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • Rationale for a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.FransH Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (2):271-291.
    Starting from a concept of reasonableness as well-consideredness, it is discussed in what way science could serve as a model for reasonable argumentation. It turns out that in order to be reasonable two requirements have to be fulfilled. The argumentation should comply with rules which are both problem-valid and intersubjectively valid. Geometrical and anthropological perspectives don't meet these criteria, but a critical perspective does. It is explained that a pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation which agrees with this critical perspective is indeed (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   32 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  
  • The Normative Structure of Case Study Argumentation.Douglas N. Walton - 1993 - Metaphilosophy 24 (3):207-226.
  • 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 Conjunction of a French Rhetoric of Unity with a Competing Nationalism in New Caledonia: A Critical Discourse Analysis.Margo Lecompte-Van Poucke - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (3):351-395.
    France and New Caledonia are currently involved in an ongoing debate surrounding the independence of the latter from the former that will lead to referenda in 2018–2022. The main stakeholders in the negotiation process are France, the Caldoche population of the island agglomeration and its Kanak inhabitants. Most critical discourse studies analyse texts as expressions of power entrenched in monologues. In this paper, however, the debate between the social actors is seen as a plurilogue. The study argues that the dominant (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony.Douglas Walton - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (1):85-113.
    This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Contexts of Begging the Question.Jim Mackenzie - 1994 - Argumentation 8 (3):227-240.
    In this paper a dialogical account of begging the question is applied to various contexts which are not obviously dialogues: - reading prose, working through a deductive system, presenting a legal case, and thinking to oneself. The account is then compared with that in chapter eight of D. Walton'sBegging the Question (New York; Greenwood, 1991).
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Manipulations in Argumentation.Zinaida Z. Ilatov - 1993 - Argumentation 7 (3):359-367.
    In public and political practice, argumentation involves verbal manipulations, which have not been sufficiently studied in modern argumentation theory. This paper proposes to analyse such manipulations as speech acts, by means of the pragmadialectical theory of argumentation.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Begging What is at Issue in the Argument.Don S. Levi - 1994 - Argumentation 8 (3):265-282.
    This paper objects to treating begging the question as circular reasoning. It argues that what is at issue in the argument is not to be confused with the claim or position that the arguer is adopting, and that logicians from Aristotle on give the wrong definition and have difficulty making sense of the fallacy because they try to define it in terms of how an argument is defined by logical theory - as a sequence consisting of premises followed by a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Rules for Argumentation in Dialogues.Frans H. Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (4):499-510.
    In this article it is pointed out what kind of rules for communication and argumentation are required in order to make it possible to resolve disputes in an orderly way. In section 2, Gricean maxims and Searlean speech act conditions are integrated in such a way that five general rules for communication can be formulated. In section 3, starting from Lewis's definition of convention, it is argued that the interactional effect of accepting is conventionally linked with the complex communicative act (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • So What? Profiles for Relevance Criticism in Persuation Dialogues.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):271-283.
    This paper discusses several types of relevance criticism within dialogue. Relevance criticism is a way one could or should criticize one's partner's contribution in a conversation as being deficient in respect of conversational coherence. The first section tries to narrow down the scope of the subject to manageable proportions. Attention is given to the distinction between criticism of alleged fallacies within dialogue and such criticism as pertains to argumentative texts. Within dialogue one may distigguish tenability criticism, connection criticism, and narrow-type (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum Ad Hominem. [REVIEW]Frans H. Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):141-159.
    This article aims tt providing some conceptual tools for dealing adequately with relevance in argumentative discourse. For this purpose, argumentative relevance is defined as a functional interactional relation between certain elements in the discourse. In addition to the distinction between interpretive and evaluative relevance that can be traced in the literature, analytic relevance is introduced as an intermediary concept. In order to classify the various problems of relevance arising in interpreting, analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse, a taxonomy is proposed in (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • Commentary on Krabbe.David M. Godden - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Mapping the Structure of Debate.Jeffrey Yoshimi - 2004 - Informal Logic 24 (1):1-22.
    Although debate is a richly structured and prevalent form of discourse, it has received little scholarly attention. Logicians have focused on the structure of individual arguments—how they divide into premises and conclusions, which in turn divide into various constituents. In contrast, I focus on the structure of sets of arguments, showing how arguments are themselves constituents in high-level dialectical structures. I represent debates and positions by graphs whose vertices correspond to arguments and whose edges correspond to two inter-argument relations: “dispute” (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Whataboutisms and Inconsistency.Axel Arturo Barceló Aspeitia - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (4):433-447.
    Despite being very common in both public and private argumentation, accusations of selective application of general premises, also known as “whataboutisms”, have been mostly overlooked in argumentation studies, where they are, at most, taken as accusations of inconsistency. Here I will defend an account according to which allegations of this sort can express the suspicion that the argumentation put forward by one party does not reflect his or her actual standpoint and reasons. Distinguishing this kind of argumentative moves is important (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Logical Fallacies as Codified Within the Conceptual System of the Lvov-Warsaw School.Marcin Koszowy - 2012 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 30 (43).
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 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.]. Amsterdam (Netherlands): 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 (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life.Maarten Boudry, Fabio Paglieri & Massimo Pigliucci - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (4):10.1007/s10503-015-9359-1.
    Philosophers of science have given up on the quest for a silver bullet to put an end to all pseudoscience, as such a neat formal criterion to separate good science from its contenders has proven elusive. In the literature on critical thinking and in some philosophical quarters, however, this search for silver bullets lives on in the taxonomies of fallacies. The attractive idea is to have a handy list of abstract definitions or argumentation schemes, on the basis of which one (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Fallacies: Do We “Use” Them or “Commit” Them? Or: Is All Our Life Just a Collection of Fallacies?Igor Zagar & Dima Mohammed - unknown
    After C. L. Hamblin's groundbreaking work Fallacies, re-interpreting what used to be known as "mistakes in reasoning" or "bad arguments" since Aristotle, the study of fallacies started to bloom, coming up with ever new perspectives and conceptualizations of what should count as a mistake in reasoning and argumentation, and why a certain kind of reasoning should at all be considered a mistake. This paper will be concerned with two questions. First, an epistemological one: do we commit fallacies, or do we (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Commentary on Mohammed.Hans V. Hansen - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Role of Arguments From Consequences in Practical Argumentation.Eveline T. Feteris - unknown
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Commentary on van Eemeren & Houtlosser.Maurice A. Finocchiaro - unknown
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Commentary on Zenker.Harvey Siegel - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Fallacies and the Concept of an Argument.Dale Turner - 1999 - Dissertation, University of California, Riverside
    This dissertation argues that recent theoretical attempts to understand fallacious reasoning fail because these theories presuppose problematic accounts of the nature of argument. Current fallacy theories agree that a fallacy is a mistake, but differ wildly about what sort of mistake it is. Chapters one through three explore three very different suggestions. Chapter one is devoted to an examination of the oldest of the modern theoretical accounts of fallacious reasoning, what Hamblin calls the standard treatment. Chapter two begins with a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • How Philosophical is Informal Logic?John Woods - 2000 - Informal Logic 20 (2).
    Consider the proposition, "Informal logic is a subdiscipline of philosophy". The best chance of showing this to be true is showing that informal logic is part of logic, which in turn is a part of philosophy. Part 1 is given over to the task of sorting out these connections. If successful, informal logic can indeed be seen as part of philosophy; but there is no question of an exclusive relationship. Part 2 is a critical appraisal of the suggestion that informal (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • The Epistemic Inferiority of Pragma-Dialectics – Reply to Botting.Christoph Lumer - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (1):51-82.
    In a recent paper in this journal, David Botting defended pragma-dialectics against epistemological criticisms by exponents of the epistemological approach to argumentation, i.e. Harvey Siegel, John Biro and me. In particular, Botting tries to justify with new arguments a Functional Claim, that the function of argumentation is to resolve disputes, and a Normative Claim, that standpoints that have the unqualified consensus of all participants in a dispute will generally be epistemically sound. In this reply it is shown that Botting’s arguments (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Normative Argumentation Theory Without Fundamental Principles.Popa Eugen Octav - unknown
    In this paper I develop and defend a form of argumentative normativity that is not based on fundamental principles. I first argue that research agendas that aim to discover fundamental principles of ‘good’ argumentative discourse share one crucial weak spot, viz. circularity. I then argue that this weak spot can be avoided in a pancritical view of normativity.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Some Axioms Underlying Argumentation Theory.George Boger - unknown
    This paper examines whether philosophers of argument, in spite of their disavowing ‘timeless principles’, nevertheless embrace a set of principles, or axioms, to underlie argumentation theory. First, it reviews the thinking of some prominent philosophers of argument; second, it extracts some principles common to their philosophies; and third, it draws out possible consequences for argumentation theory and asks whether such theory has an underlying political posture.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Dialectical Relevance in Persuasion Dialogue.Douglas Walton - 1999 - Informal Logic 19 (2).
    How to model relevance in argumentation is an important problem for informal logic. Dialectical relcvance is determined by the use of an argument for some purpose in different types of dialogue, according to the ncw dialectic. A central type of dialogue is persuasion dialogue in which one participant uses rational argumentation to try to get the other participant to accept a designated proposition. In this paper, a method for judging relevance in persuasion dialogue is presented. The method is based on (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Constructing a Periodic Table of Arguments.H. M. Wagemans Jean - unknown
    The existing classifications of arguments are unsatisfying in a number of ways. This paper proposes an alternative in the form of a Periodic Table of Arguments. The newly developed table can be used as a systematic and comprehensive point of reference for the analysis, evaluation and production of argumentative discourse as well as for various kinds of empirical and computational research in the field of argumentation theory.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • There is No Fallacy of Arguing From Authority.Edwin Coleman - 1995 - Informal Logic 17 (3).
    I argue that there is no fallacy of argument from authority. I first show the weakness of the case for there being such a fallacy: text-book presentations are confused, alleged examples are not genuinely exemplary, reasons given for its alleged fallaciousness are not convincing. Then I analyse arguing from authority as a complex speech act. Rejecting the popular but unjustified category of the "part-time fallacy", I show that bad arguments which appeal to authority are defective through breach of some felicity (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Reasoning in Conversation.Lauren Resnick, Merrilee Salmon, Colleen Zeitz, Sheila Haley Wathen & Mark Holowchak - 1993 - Ethics and Behavior 11 (3):347-364.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Arguments That Take Counterconsiderations Into Account.Jan Albert van Laar - 2014 - Informal Logic 34 (3):240-275.
    This paper examines arguments that take counter- considerations into account, and it does so from a dialogical point of view. According to my account, a counterconsideration is part of a critical reaction from a real or imagined opponent, and an arguer may take it into account in his argument in at least six fully responsive ways. Conductive arguments will be characterized as one of these types. In this manner, the paper aims to show how conducive, and related kinds of argument (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Finnish Working-Class Argumentation—A Minimalist Exercise.Mika Hietanen - unknown
    Finnish oral communication is often considered to be something of a minimalist exercise. A well-known expression of such communication is the so-called Proletariat Trilogy by the Finnish film-maker Aki Kaurismäki. This study presents an analysis of persuasive and argumentative dialogues in the manuscript to Shadows in Paradise. The approach is based on Searle’s speech acts, Grice’s conversational maxims, and Pragma-Dialectics. The result is a description of Finnish working-class everyday rhetoric as it is portrayed in the international breakthrough film of Kaurismäki.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Strategies in Dialectic and Rhetoric.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
  • ‘A Real Lesbian Wouldn't Touch a Bisexual with a Bargepole': Contesting Boundaries in the Construction of Collective Identity.Georgina Turner - 2015 - Critical Discourse Studies 12 (2):139-162.
    Drawn from an investigation of the construction of collective identity in DIVA magazine between 1994 and 2004, this article considers the discursive contestation of the boundaries necessarily, though never straightforwardly, erected in the process. Analysing first a selection of articles and second debates about who ‘we’ are in and between readers' letters, the article focuses on the ‘trouble’ posed by bisexuality in this era. Readers draw on and contest a cluster of interrelated characterisations of bisexuals: as undecided, as a kind (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Persuasion Dialogue in Online Dispute Resolution.Douglas Walton & David M. Godden - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):273-295.
    In this paper we show how dialogue-based theories of argumentation can contribute to the construction of effective systems of dispute resolution. Specifically we consider the role of persuasion in online dispute resolution by showing how persuasion dialogues can be functionally embedded in negotiation dialogues, and how negotiation dialogues can shift to persuasion dialogues. We conclude with some remarks on how persuasion dialogues might be modelled is such a way as to allow them to be implemented in a mechanical or computerized (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Towards a Critique-Friendly Approach to the Straw Man Fallacy Evaluation.Marcin Lewiński - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (4):469-497.
    In this article I address the following question: When are reformulations in argumentative criticisms reasonable and when do they become fallacious straw men? Following ideas developed in the integrated version of pragma-dialectics, I approach argumentation as an element of agonistic exchanges permeated by arguers’ strategic manoeuvring aimed at effectively defeating the opponent with reasonable means. I propose two basic context-sensitive criteria for deciding on the reasonableness of reformulations: precision of the rules for interpretation (precise vs. loose) and general expectation of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Argumentative Bluff in Eristic Discussion: An Analysis and Evaluation.Jan Albert van Laar - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (3):383-398.
    How does the analysis and evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argumentation has been put forward? This paper focuses on argumentative bluff in eristic discussion. Argumentation cannot be presented without conveying the pretence that it is dialectically reasonable, as well as, at least to some degree, rhetorically effective. Within eristic discussion it can be profitable to engage in bluff with respect to such claims. However, it will be argued that such bluffing is dialectically inadmissible, even (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Rules for Reasoning From Knowledge and Lack of Knowledge.Douglas Walton - 2006 - Philosophia 34 (3):355-376.
    In this paper, the traditional view that argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logical fallacy is challenged, and lessons are drawn on how to model inferences drawn from knowledge in combination with ones drawn from lack of knowledge. Five defeasible rules for evaluating knowledge-based arguments that apply to inferences drawn under conditions of lack of knowledge are formulated. They are the veridicality rule, the consistency of knowledge rule, the closure of knowledge rule, the rule of refutation and the rule for argument (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Can 'Big' Questions Be Begged?David Botting - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (1):23-36.
    Traditionally, logicians construed fallacies as mistakes in inference, as things that looked like good (i.e., deductively valid) arguments but were not. Two fallacies stood out like a sore thumb on this view of fallacies: the fallacy of many questions (because it does not even look like a good argument, or any kind of argument) and the fallacy of petitio principii (because it looks like and is a good argument). The latter is the concern of this paper. One possible response is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Due Process and Standard-Setting: An Analysis of Due Process in Three Canadian Accounting and Auditing Standard-Setting Bodies.Alan J. Richardson - 2008 - Journal of Business Ethics 81 (3):679-696.
    Due process is the means by which ethical constraints are placed on administrative decision-making. I have developed a model of variation in due process and use this model to explore the implementation of “due process” norms by three standard-setting bodies that are created, funded, and overseen by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants – the Accounting Standards Board, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, and the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board. I conducted two analyses: a comparative analysis of the implementation (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • On Being Objective: Hard Data, Soft Data and Baseball.A. Gilbert Michael - unknown
    “Objective” is a term that has a long and sometimes tumultuous history and a wide range of meanings. The sense in which I am interested here is the one that refers to ways of thinking, and especially the explicit criticism of an argument or judgment as not being “objective,” as exemplified in the following. You’re not being objective. You have to look at it objectively. Objectively, the best choice is… Being objective, I’d have to say… Implicit in these statements is (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Ad Hominem as a Derailment of Confrontational Strategic Manoeuvring.Dima Mohammed - unknown
    In order for confrontational strategic manoeuvring, aimed at defining in a reasonable way the difference of opinion to one’s own advantage, to be sound, arguers’ attempt to arrive at a particular definition must not prevent other definitions from coming about. This paper discusses the ad hominem fallacy as an obstruction of the procedure of critical testing as a result of failure to meet this particular soundness conditions.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • More About Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering: The Case of Tu Quoque.Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser - unknown
  • Pragma-Dialectic’s Necessary Conditions for a Critical Discussion.Frank Zenker - unknown
    I present a “reduced” version of the fifteen Pragma-dialectical rules and inquire into their theoretical status as necessary conditions for a critical discussion. Questions: In what respect is PD’s non-sufficiency a deficiency, can and must it be remedied? Brief answers: with respect to defining the concept ‘critical discussion,’ possibly, yes, if, and only if, one seeks to identify the concept ‘critical discussion’; no, if PD is for fallacy-detection.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • It's All Very Well for You to Talk! Situationally Disqualifying Ad Hominem Attacks.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Douglas Walton - 1993 - Informal Logic 15 (2).
    The situationally disqualifying ad hominem attack is an argumentative move in critical dialogue whereby one participant points out certain features in his adversary's personal situation that are claimed to make it inappropriate for this adversary to take a particular point of view, to argue in a particular way, or to launch certain criticisms. In this paper, we discuss some examples of this way of arguing. Other types of ad hominem argumentation are discussed as well and compared with the situationally disqualifying (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • The Current State of Informal Logic.J. Anthony Blair & Ralph H. Johnson - 1987 - Informal Logic 9 (2).