Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Criticism Without Fundamental Principles.Eugen Octav Popa - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (2):192-216.
    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 (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Populism and Informal Fallacies: An Analysis of Right-Wing Populist Rhetoric in Election Campaigns.Sina Blassnig, Florin Büchel, Nicole Ernst & Sven Engesser - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (1):107-136.
    Populism is on the rise, especially in Western Europe. While it is often assumed that populist actors have a tendency for fallacious reasoning, this has not been systematically investigated. We analyze the use of informal fallacies by right-wing populist politicians and their representation in the media during election campaigns. We conduct a quantitative content analysis of press releases of right-wing populist parties and news articles in print media during the most recent elections in the United Kingdom and Switzerland in 2015. (...)
    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  
  • Brothers in Arms: Virtue and Pragma-Dialectics.José Gascón - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (4):705-724.
    Virtue argumentation theory focuses on the arguers’ character, whereas pragma-dialectics focuses on argumentation as a procedure. In this paper I attempt to explain that both theories are not opposite approaches to argumentation. I argue that, with the help of some non-fundamental changes in pragma-dialectics and some restrictions in virtue argumentation theory, it is possible to regard these theories as complementary approaches to the argumentative practice.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Peer Disagreement and the Bridge Principle.Marc-Kevin Daoust - forthcoming - Topoi:1-11.
    One explanation of rational peer disagreement is that agents find themselves in an epistemically permissive situation. In fact, some authors have suggested that, while evidence could be impermissive at the intrapersonal level, it is permissive at the interpersonal level. In this paper, I challenge such a claim. I will argue that, at least in cases of rational disagreement under full disclosure, there cannot be more interpersonal epistemically permissive situations than there are intrapersonal epistemically permissive situations. In other words, with respect (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark