Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):193-218 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants. What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-04-24

Downloads
38 (#409,607)

6 months
7 (#411,886)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?