Argumentation 17 (4):365-386 (2003)

According to the pragma-dialectical ideal of reasonableness, in case of a difference of opinion the protagonist and the antagonist of a standpoint should attempt to find out by means of a critical discussion whether the protagonist's standpoint is capable of withstanding the antagonist's criticism. In this paper, the authors formulate the latest version of their basic rules for the performance of speech acts in the various stages that can beanalytically distinguished in a critical discussion that can lead to the resolution of a single and non-mixed difference opinion
Keywords argumentation  critical discussion  discourse analysis  (pragma-)dialectics  speech act
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1023/A:1026334218681
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: 70,008
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

From Axiom to Dialogue.E. M. Barth & E. C. W. Krabbe - 1985 - Studia Logica 44 (2):228-230.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Argumentation and Meaning.Steve Oswald, Sara Greco, Johanna Miecznikowski, Chiara Pollaroli & Andrea Rocci - 2020 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 9 (1):1-18.
A Popperian Approach to Rational Argumentation in Applied Ethics.Fabio Bacchini - 2015 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 4 (3):243-285.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Topical Roots of Formal Dialectic.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):71-87.


Added to PP index

Total views
42 ( #269,546 of 2,505,154 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,587 of 2,505,154 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes