Informal Logic 24 (1):1-22 (2004)
Although debate is a richly structured and prevalent form of discourse, it has received little scholarly attention. Logicians have focused on the structure of individual arguments—how they divide into premises and conclusions, which in turn divide into various constituents. In contrast, I focus on the structure of sets of arguments, showing how arguments are themselves constituents in high-level dialectical structures. I represent debates and positions by graphs whose vertices correspond to arguments and whose edges correspond to two inter-argument relations: “dispute” and “support,” respectively. On this basis I develop a theory of the structure of debate.
|Keywords||debate, argumentation analysis, argument diagrams, argument visualization, dialectics, discourse analysis|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Argument Structure and Disciplinary Perspective.James B. Freeman - 2001 - Argumentation 15 (4):397-423.
Self-Referential Arguments in Philosophy.Elke Brendel - 2007 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 74 (1):177-197.
The Structure, the Whole Structure, and Nothing but the Structure?Stathis Psillos - 2006 - Philosophy of Science 73 (5):560-570.
Structural Priming as Structure-Mapping: Children Use Analogies From Previous Utterances to Guide Sentence Production.Micah B. Goldwater, Marc T. Tomlinson, Catharine H. Echols & Bradley C. Love - 2011 - Cognitive Science 35 (1):156-170.
The Logical Structure of the Debate About McTaggart's Paradox.Quentin Smith - 1988 - Philosophy Research Archives 14:371-379.
Structure-Mapping: Directions From Simulation to Theory.Theodore Bach - 2011 - Philosophical Psychology 24 (1):23-51.
Added to index2009-07-18
Total downloads59 ( #86,553 of 2,153,861 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #398,005 of 2,153,861 )
How can I increase my downloads?