10 found

Year:

  1.  6
    Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy.Mark Aakhus & Marcin Lewiński - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):179-207.
    This paper offers a new way to make sense of disagreement expansion from a polylogical perspective by incorporating various places in addition to players and positions into the analysis. The concepts build on prior implicit ideas about disagreement space by suggesting how to more fully account for argumentative context, and its construction, in large-scale complex controversies. As a basis for our polylogical analysis, we use a New York Times news story reporting on an oil train explosion—a significant point in the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  11
    Factors Predicting the Intent to Engage in Arguments in Close Relationships: A Revised Model.Ioana A. Cionea, Adam S. Richards & Sara K. Straub - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):121-163.
    This manuscript examines argument engagement in close relationships. Two pilot studies were conducted to identify what factors naïve actors report matter to them when considering whether to engage in an interpersonal argument, and to develop and pre-test measurement scales for these factors. The main study examined which of these factors predicted participants’ behavioral intent to engage in an argument about different topics and with different partners. Results indicated intent to engage was predicted by five factors: one’s orientation to the topic, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  11
    Self-Reporting and the Argumentativeness Scale: An Empirical Examination.Stephen M. Croucher, Alfred DeMaris, Audra R. Diers-Lawson & Shannon Roper - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):23-43.
    This study has two purposes. First, the study evaluates the reliability of self-reports of argumentativeness by comparing self-reported argumentativeness with two other reports of the same target: evaluations by friends and evaluations by intimates. Second, the study examines whether particular characteristics presage a larger or smaller disparity in different reporters’ reports. We found the reliability of both the approach and avoidance subscales to be acceptable for the intimate partner’s responses, but only marginally acceptable when the scale was answered by a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  7
    Unacceptable Generalizations in Arguments on Legal Evidence.Christian Dahlman - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):83-99.
    Arguments on legal evidence rely on generalizations, that link a certain circumstance to a certain hypothesis and warrants the claim that the circumstance makes the hypothesis more probable. Some generalizations are acceptable and others are unacceptable. A generalization can be unacceptable on at least four different grounds. A false generalization is unacceptable because membership in the reference class does not increase the probability of the hypothesis. A non-robust generalization is unacceptable because it uses a reference class that is too heterogeneous. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  10
    F. H. Van Eemeren, B. Garssen : Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory.Sara Greco - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):213-220.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  16
    Must a Successful Argument Convert an Ideal Audience?Xingming Hu - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):165-177.
    Peter van Inwagen defines a successful argument in philosophy as one that can be used to convert an audience of ideal agnostics in an ideal debate. Sarah McGrath and Thomas Kelly recently argue that van Inwagen’s definition cannot be correct since the idea of ideal agnostics is incoherent with regard to an absolute paradigm of a successful philosophical argument. This paper defends van Inwagen’s definition against McGrath and Kelly’s objection.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  7
    Towards a Theory of Close Analysis for Dispute Mediation Discourse.Mathilde Janier & Chris Reed - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):45-82.
    Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution process that is becoming more and more popular particularly in English-speaking countries. In contrast to traditional litigation it has not benefited from technological advances and little research has been carried out to make this increasingly widespread practice more efficient. The study of argumentation in dispute mediation hitherto has largely been concerned with theoretical insights. The development of argumentation theories linked to computational applications opens promising new horizons since computational tools could support mediators, making sessions (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  7
    The Formalization of Critical Discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):101-119.
    This paper makes an independent start with formalizing the rules for the argumentation stage of critical discussions. It does not deal with the well-known code of conduct consisting of ten rules but with the system consisting of fifteen rules on which the code of conduct is based. The rules of this system are scrutinized and problems they raise are discussed. Then a formal dialectical system is defined that reflects most of the contents of these rules. The aim is to elucidate (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  8
    Institutional Argumentation and Institutional Rules: Effects of Interactive Asymmetry on Argumentation in Institutional Contexts.Mark Andrew Thompson - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):1-21.
    Recent approaches to studying argumentation in institutions have pointed out the role of institutional rules in constraining argumentation that takes place in institutional contexts. However, few studies explain how these rules concretely affect actual argumentation. In particular, little work has been done as to the consequences of interactional asymmetry which often exists between participants in institutional contexts. While previous studies have suggested that this asymmetry exists as an aberration in the deliberative process, this paper argues that asymmetry is built into (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  8
    Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice.Harry Weger - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):209-211.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues