Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Practical Reasoning in Corporate Communication with Multiple Audiences.Rudi Palmieri & Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati - 2017 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 6 (2):167-192.
    Corporate strategic communication has to be designed by considering multiple audiences of stakeholders. In this paper, we study the connection between the audience structure of corporate messages and the structure of the practical argumentation advanced to persuasively justify a business proposal. To this purpose, we combine a conceptual and analytical framework for the reconstruction of multiple audiences – the Text Stakeholders model, with a conceptual and analytical framework for the reconstruction of argument schemes – the Argumentum Model of Topics. A (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Prototypical Argumentative Patterns in a Legal Context: The Role of Pragmatic Argumentation in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.Eveline T. Feteris - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (1):61-79.
    In this contribution the prototypical argumentative patterns are discussed in which pragmatic argumentation is used in the context of legal justification in hard cases. First, the function and implementation of pragmatic argumentation in prototypical argumentative patterns in legal justification are addressed. The dialectical function of the different parts of the complex argumentation are explained by characterizing them as argumentative moves that are put forward in reaction to certain forms of critique. Then, on the basis of an exemplary case, the famous (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Arguments From Unacceptable Consequences and a Reasonable Application of Law.Eveline T. Feteris - unknown
  • The Pragma-Dialectical Reconstruction of Teleological-Evaluative Argumentation in Complex Structures of Legal Justification.Eveline Feteris - unknown
    I give a pragma-dialectical reconstruction of the role of teleological-evaluative argumentation referring to goals and values in the justification of judicial decisions. I establish the role and place of this form of argumentation in complex forms of justification in which the argumentation interacts with other forms of legal argumentation. I will do this by integrating the insights from legal theory and legal philosophy into a pragma-dialectical framework for the analysis and evaluation of argumentation.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Strategic Manoeuvring with Linguistic Arguments in the Justification of Legal Decisions.Eveline Feteris - unknown
    Participants to a legal process often use linguistic arguments to support their claim. With a linguistic argument it is shown that the proposed interpretation of a rule is based on the meaning of the words used in the rule in ordinary or technical language. The reason why a linguistic argument is chosen as a support for a legal claim is that linguistic arguments are considered to have a preferred status in justifying a legal decision. However, this preferred status can also (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Weighing and Balancing in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.Eveline Feteris - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (1):20-30.
    In legal theory, it is widely claimed that decisions in hard cases are based on weighing and balancing. However no reconstructions are given of the deep structure of the complex argumentation underlying the justification of these decisions. The author develops a model for the analysis of weighing and balancing of arguments in the justification of judicial decisions that are based on teleological-evaluative considerations. The justification is reconstructed as a complex argumentation that consists of different levels of argumentation and it is (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Exploring the Virtues of Zero Tolerance Arguments.Sheldon Wein - unknown
    The zero tolerance fallacy occurs when someone advocates or adopts a zero tolerance policy towards some activity or behaviour without seeing if there is evidence to support the view that such a policy is the best or most cost-effective way of preventing or reducing the unwanted behaviour. This paper explores the idea that, instead of thinking about what the zero tolerance fallacy is, argumentation theorists should try to characterize what features good arguments for zero tolerance policies must have.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Choosing Variants of Pragmatic Argumentation in Anticipation of Countermoves in Health Brochures.Lotte van Poppel & Linda Carozza - unknown
    In this paper, I will determine the strategic function of the use of four variants of pragmatic argumentation in the context of advisory health brochures. I argue that each variant functions as a strategic manoeuvre that deals with potential countermoves: with variant I and II writers can address anticipated doubt with respect to the standpoint and with variants III and IV they can strategically erase potential criti-cism or possible alternatives to the proposed action.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Arguing About Desirable Consequences: What Constitutes a Convincing Argument?Hans Hoeken, Rian Timmers & Peter Jan Schellens - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):394 - 416.
    Argument quality has consistently been shown to have strong and lasting persuasive effects. The question is what criteria people use to distinguish strong from weak arguments and how these criteria relate to the ones proposed in normative argumentation theory. In an experiment 235 participants without training in argumentation theory rated the acceptance of 30 claims about the desirability of a consequence that were supported by either an argument from analogy, from authority, or from consequences. The supporting arguments were systematically manipulated (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • The Analysis and Evaluation of Legal Argumentation: Approaches From Legal Theory and Argumentation Theory.Eveline Feteris & Harm Klossterhuis - 2009 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 16 (29).
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The 2015 Paris Climate Conference.Marcin Lewiński & Dima Mohammed - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):65-90.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • “Our Reading Would Lead To…”: Corpus Perspectives on Pragmatic Argumentation in US Supreme Court Judgments.Davide Mazzi - 2014 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 3 (2):103-125.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Rational Reconstruction of Argumentation Referring to Consequences and Purposes in the Application of Legal Rules: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.Eveline T. Feteris - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):459-470.
    In this paper, the author develops an instrument for the rational reconstruction of argumentation in which a judicial decision is justified by referring to the consequences in relation to the purpose of the rule. The instrument is developed by integrating insights from legal theory and legal philosophy about the function and use of arguments from consequences in relation to the purpose of a rule into a pragma-dialectical framework. Then, by applying the instrument to the analysis of examples from legal practice, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Eveline T. Feteris: Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation.T. J. M. Bench-Capon - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 26 (3):307-314.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Arguing About the Likelihood of Consequences: Laypeople's Criteria to Distinguish Strong Arguments From Weak Ones.Hans Hoeken, Ester Šorm & Peter Jan Schellens - 2014 - Thinking and Reasoning 20 (1):77-98.
    High-quality arguments have strong and lasting persuasive effects, suggesting that people can distinguish high- from low-quality arguments. However, we know little of what norms people employ to make that distinction. Some studies have shown that, in evaluating arguments from consequences, people are more sensitive to differences with respect to the desirability of these consequences than to differences in the likelihood that these consequences will occur. This raises the question of whether people lack the criteria to distinguish high-quality from low-quality arguments (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The Pragma-Dialectical Analysis and Evaluation of Teleological Argumentation in a Legal Context.Eveline T. Feteris - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (4):489-506.
    In this article the author develops a framework for a pragma-dialectical reconstruction of teleological argumentation in a legal context. Ideas taken from legal theory are integrated in a pragma-dialectical model for analyzing and evaluating argumentation, thus providing a more systematic and elaborate framework for assessing the quality of teleological arguments in a legal context. Teleological argumentation in a legal context is approached as a specific form of pragmatic argumentation. The legal criteria that are relevant for the evaluation of teleological argumentation (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Strategic Maneuvering with the Intention of the Legislator in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.Eveline T. Feteris - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (3):335-353.
    The author gives an analysis of the strategic manoeuvring in the justification of legal decisions from a pragma-dialectical perspective by showing how a judge tries to reconcile dialectical and rhetorical aims. On the basis of an analysis and evaluation of the argumentation given by the US Supreme Court in the famous Holy Trinity case, it is shown how in a case in which the judge wants to make an exception to a legal rule for the concrete case tries to meet (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations