Topoi:1-14 (forthcoming)

Katharina Stevens
University of Lethbridge
Daniel Cohen
Colby College
Is argumentation essentially adversarial? The concept of a devil's advocate—a cooperative arguer who assumes the role of an opponent for the sake of the argument—serves as a lens to bring into clearer focus the ways that adversarial arguers can be virtuous and adversariality itself can contribute to argumentation's goals. It also shows the different ways arguments can be adversarial and the different ways that argumentation can be said to be "essentially" adversarial.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11245-020-09726-x
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 61,025
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Manifest Rationality.Ralph Johnson - 2000 - Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.Dan Sperber - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):57.
[Book Review] the Racial Contract. [REVIEW]Charles W. Mills - 1999 - Social Theory and Practice 25 (1):155-160.

View all 39 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Adversariality and Argumentation.John Casey - 2020 - Informal Logic 40 (1):77-108.
Argumentation, Adversariality, and Social Norms.Audrey Yap - 2020 - Metaphilosophy 51 (5):747-765.


Added to PP index

Total views
17 ( #604,265 of 2,439,585 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #64,978 of 2,439,585 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes