Standing Standpoints and Argumentative Associates: What is at Stake in a Public Political Argument?

Argumentation 33 (3):307-322 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In today’s ‘networked’ public sphere, arguers are faced with countless controversies roaming out there. Knowing what is at stake at any point in time, and keeping under control the contribution one’s arguments make to the different interrelated issues requires careful craft Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2011). In this paper, I explore the difficulty of determining what is at stake at any moment of the argumentative situation and explore the challenge that that creates for examining the strategic shape of arguments. I argue that a meaningful examination of networked argumentative encounters requires that the boundaries of an encounter remain ‘fluid. In dealing with the fluid boundaries, I suggest to identify “argumentative associates” and “standing standpoints”.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,466

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

Arguments, Implicatures and Argumentative Implicatures.Andrei Moldovan - 2012 - In Henrique Jales Ribeiro (ed.), Inside Arguments: Logic And The Study of Argumentation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-11-24

Downloads
25 (#459,695)

6 months
3 (#210,165)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Fallacies.Charles Leonard Hamblin - 1970 - London, England: Vale Press.
Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 160:492-492.
The Construction of Social Reality.Alan Nelson - 1995 - Ethics 108 (1):208-210.

View all 18 references / Add more references