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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.2478/slgr-2014-0010
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,242
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Two Dogmas of Empiricism.W. Quine - 1951 - [Longmans, Green].
Two Dogmas of Empiricism.Willard V. O. Quine - 1951 - Philosophical Review 60 (1):20–43.

View all 43 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The 2015 Paris Climate Conference.Marcin Lewiński & Dima Mohammed - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):65-90.
Environmental Manifestoes.Soledade Rodrigues, Marcin Lewiński & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):12-39.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-04-24

Total views
28 ( #388,081 of 2,444,856 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #457,287 of 2,444,856 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes