My understanding of the fundamental points of difference between Continental and analytical philosophy is that Continentals do not make the same distinction between philosophy and other disciplines compared with the attitude by philosophers within the Anglo Saxon/American tradition, and consequently I imagine this is why Continental philosophers tend to look at an argument within the context of social history, psychology,anthropology, literature and so on.   Whilst the dialectical style of many Continental argument examinine the reasons why  something is the case within the context of other sorts of disciplines, analytical arguments are  necessarily adversarial in nature, which commits them to focus rather more upon the weaknesses of the other's logic.  I believe this style of agument can sometimes overlook pertinent truths.   The UK legal system is also based on this analytical adversarial line of argumentation, and similarly focuses upon an innocent/guilty verdict whereas there must be many occasions where truth is not so clear cut, or at least that whilst logic can prove a valid case in terms of its narrow remit, it does not always provide a broad picture.  I think there is a comparison here concerning the analytical/Continental divide. 

Dilys