Winning and Losing for Arguers

Abstract

What roles do “winning” and “losing” have to play in argumentative discussions? We say that someone has “won” a discussion or debate, but also an emphasis on “winning” is often rejected. The question is: can these concepts be so interpreted that justice is done to these antagonistic views? Starting from Aristotelian ideas, the paper purports to establish that the views mentioned above can indeed be reconciled.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,479

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Sartrean transcendence: Winning and losing.P. J. Crittenden - 1985 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63 (4):440 – 450.
Games with 1-backtracking.Stefano Berardi, Thierry Coquand & Susumu Hayashi - 2010 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 161 (10):1254-1269.
Best-of-two contests with psychological effects.Alex Krumer - 2013 - Theory and Decision 75 (1):85-100.
Online CSR reportage of award‐winning versus non award‐winning banks in Ghana.Robert Ebo Hinson - 2011 - Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 9 (2):102-115.
Dialogue Foundations.Wilfrid Hodges & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2001 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75:17-49.
Between proof and truth.Julien Boyer & Gabriel Sandu - 2012 - Synthese 187 (3):821-832.
Gurevich-Harrington's games defined by finite automata.Alexander Yakhnis & Vladimir Yakhnis - 1993 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 62 (3):265-294.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-04-02

Downloads
18 (#615,492)

6 months
1 (#455,463)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Arguments with losers.Andrew Aberdein - 2016 - Florida Philosophical Review 16 (1):1-11.
The Methodological Usefulness of Deep Disagreement.Steven W. Patterson - 2015 - Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 6 (2).

Add more citations