Results for 'A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans C. W. Krabbe'

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  29
    Frans H. Van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C.W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij and Jean H.M. Wagemans: Handbook of Argumentation Theory: Springer, Dordrecht, 2014, ISBN: 978-90-481-9472-8 , ISBN: 978-90-481-9473-5 , ISBN: 978-90-481-9474-2. [REVIEW]Ton van Haaften - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):345-351.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2.  10
    Frans H. Van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C.W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij and Jean H.M. Wagemans: Handbook of Argumentation Theory. [REVIEW]Ton Haaften - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):345-351.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments.Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, J. Anthony Blair, Ralph H. Johnson & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1998 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 31 (1):71-74.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  4.  56
    The Ways of Criticism.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):199-227.
    This paper attempts to systematically characterize critical reactions in argumentative discourse, such as objections, critical questions, rebuttals, refutations, counterarguments, and fallacy charges, in order to contribute to the dialogical approach to argumentation. We shall make use of four parameters to characterize distinct types of critical reaction. First, a critical reaction has a focus, for example on the standpoint, or on another part of an argument. Second, critical reactions appeal to some kind of norm, argumentative or other. Third, they each have (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  5. Dialectical Profiles and Indicators of Argumentative Moves.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Peter Houtlosser, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren - 2015 - In A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Peter Houtlosser, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren (eds.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Springer Verlag.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  6.  52
    State-of-the-Art: The Structure of Argumentation. [REVIEW]A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (4):447-473.
    In this paper, a survey is presented of the main approaches to the structure of argumentation. The paper starts with a historical overview of the distinctions between various types of argument structure. Next, the main definitions given in the various approaches are discussed as well as the methods that are proposed to deal with doubtful cases.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  7.  46
    Speech Act Theory and the Study of Argumentation.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):41-58.
    :In this paper, the influence of speech act theory and Grice’s the- ory of conversational implicature on the study of argumentation is discussed. First, the role that pragmatic insights play in van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and Jackson and Jacobs’ conver- sational approach to argumentation is described. Next, a number of examples of recent work by argumentation scholars is presented in which insights from speech act theory play a prominent role.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  8.  28
    Manoeuvring Strategically with Praeteritio.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (3):339-350.
    This paper investigates the role that the stylistic device of praeteritio (or paralipsis) can play in arguers’ attempts to reconcile their rhetorical with their dialectical aims by manoeuvring strategically when carrying out particular discussion moves of the dialectical procedure for resolving a dispute. First, attention will be paid to the ways in which praeteritio can be realized in discourse. Next, an analysis is given of the effects the use of praeteritio may have as a result of the presentational means that (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  9.  69
    Review Of: Frans H. Van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans: Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. A Pragma-Dialectical Study: Springer: Dordrecht, 2007, Ix, 234 Pp. [REVIEW]Manfred Kienpointner - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (4):519-524.
    Review of: Frans H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans: Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. A Pragma-Dialectical Study Content Type Journal Article Pages 519-524 DOI 10.1007/s10503-010-9182-7 Authors Manfred Kienpointner, Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen, Universität Innsbruck, Innrain 52, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria Journal Argumentation Online ISSN 1572-8374 Print ISSN 0920-427X Journal Volume Volume 24 Journal Issue Volume 24, Number 4.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  10.  17
    Comments On `Analyzing Argumentative Discourse From a Rhetorical Perspective: Defining "Person" and "Human Life" in Constitutional Disputes Over Abortion'.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (3):333-338.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  11
    Walton's Scare Tactics Arguments That Appeal to Fear and Threats.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2001 - Informal Logic 21 (3).
  12.  28
    Frans H. Van Eemeren and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans: Argumentation: Analysis and Evaluation: 2nd Edition, Routledge, New York and London, 2017, 174 Pp.Sara Greco - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (1):151-153.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13.  33
    A.F. Snoeck Henkemans,Analysing Complex Argumentation: The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion. [REVIEW]Robert C. Pinto - 1994 - Argumentation 8 (3):314-318.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14.  32
    Institutional Constraints on Strategic Maneuvering in Shared Medical Decision-Making.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans & Dima Mohammed - 2012 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):19-32.
    In this paper it is first investigated to what extent the institutional goal and basic principles of shared decision making are compatible with the aim and rules for critical discussion. Next, some techniques that doctors may use to present their own treatment preferences strategically in a shared decision making process are discussed and evaluated both from the perspective of the ideal of shared decision making and from that of critical discussion.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  15. (Brassart) Frans H. Van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans Et Al., Fundamentals of Argumen-Tation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Background and Contemporary Developments (Manfred Kien). [REVIEW]Douglas N. Walton - 1998 - Argumentation 12:513-516.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16.  39
    Frans H. Van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans Et Alia, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Background and Contemporary Developments. [REVIEW]Manfred Kienpointner - 1998 - Argumentation 12 (1):127-133.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17.  26
    Argumentative Patterns Using Symptomatic Argumentation in Over-the-Counter Medicine Advertisements.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2017 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 6 (1):59-75.
    In this paper, the analysis given in Snoeck Henkemans of argumentative patterns in over-the-counter medicine advertisements is extended by providing more insight into the argumentative patterns resulting from the support of two types of claims: the claim that the medicinal product is safe and the claim that there is no better alternative for the product. It is first established which types of argument are prototypically used to support these claims. Then it is investigated what kind of extensions might (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18.  31
    Arguments, Meta-Arguments, and Metadialogues: A Reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods. [REVIEW]Maurice A. Finocchiaro - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (3):253-268.
    Krabbe (2003, in F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 641–644) defined a metadialogue as a dialogue about one or more dialogues, and a ground-level dialogue as a dialogue that is not a metadialogue. Similarly, I define a meta-argument as an argument about one or more arguments, and a ground-level argument as one which is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  19.  7
    Argumentative Use and Strategic Function of the Expression ‘Not for Nothing’.Henrike Jansen & Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (2):143-162.
    In English discourse one can find cases of the expression ‘not for nothing’ being used in argumentation. The expression can occur both in the argument and in the standpoint. In this chapter we analyse the argumentative and rhetorical aspects of ‘not for nothing’ by regarding this expression as a presentational device for strategic manoeuvring. We investigate under which conditions the proposition containing the expression ‘not for nothing’ functions as a standpoint, an argument or neither of these elements. It is also (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  20.  9
    The Stereotypicality of Symptomatic and Pragmatic Argumentation in Consultations About Palliative Systemic Treatment for Advanced Cancer.Aranka Akkermans, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Nanon Labrie, Inge Henselmans & Hanneke van Laarhoven - 2018 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 7 (2):181-203.
    A recent line of argumentation research has focused on the examination of prototypical argumentative patterns – patterns that can be theoretically expected in view of the type of standpoint defended, the institutional aim, and the conventions and constraints of the context. This paper aims to add a new dimension to both this line of research and research on health communication by determining whether the prototypical types of argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer are stereotypical as well, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  21.  9
    A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective on Obstacles to Shared Decision-Making.Roosmaryn Pilgram & Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2018 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 7 (2):161-176.
    Shared medical decision-making has been analyzed as a particular kind of argumentative discussion. In the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, different types of conditions and rules are formulated for the ideal of a reasonable argumentative discussion. In this paper, we shall first show how making use of the distinctions made in the pragma-dialectical theory between different types of conditions for reasonable discussion can help to give a more systematic account of the obstacles that need to be overcome for shared decision-making to be (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  22.  21
    James B. Freeman,Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments. A Theory of Argument Structure.Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 1994 - Argumentation 8 (3):319-321.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23.  29
    Commentary on Jan Albert van Laar and Erik C. W. Krabbe, “Splitting a Difference of Opinion”.David Godden - unknown
    Jan Albert van Laar and Erik Krabbe’s paper “Splitting a difference of opinion” studies an important type of dialogue shift, namely that from a deliberation dialogue over action or policy options where critical and persuasive argumentation is exchanged about the rational acceptability of the policy options proposed by various parties, to a negotiation dialogue where agreement is reached by a series of compromises, or trade-offs, on the part of each side in the disagreement.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  24.  20
    Argumentation in the Healthcare Domain.Sara Rubinelli & A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2012 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):1-4.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  25.  3
    From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation.Else Margarete Barth & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1982 - Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   105 citations  
  26.  11
    Nanon H.M. Labrie .For the Sake of Argument: Considering the Role, Characteristics and Effects of Argumentation in General Practice Consultation. [REVIEW]John Magnus R. Dahl & A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2015 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 4 (2):232-235.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27.  25
    Eemeren, Frans H. Van, Grootendorst, Rob and Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca (2002).Claude Gratton - 2004 - Argumentation 18 (4):489-494.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  28. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning.Douglas Neil Walton & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1995 - Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.
    Develops a logical analysis of dialogue in which two or more parties attempt to advance their own interests. It includes a classification of the major types of dialogues and a discussion of several important informal fallacies.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   364 citations  
  29.  24
    Dialogue Foundations.Wilfrid Hodges & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2001 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75:17-49.
    [Wilfrid Hodges] During the last forty or so years it has become popular to offer explanations of logical notions in terms of games. There is no doubt that many people find games helpful for understanding various logical phenomena. But we ask whether anything is really 'explained' by these accounts, and we analyse Paul Lorenzen's dialogue foundations for constructive logic as an example. The conclusion is that the value of games lies in their ability to provide helpful metaphors and representations, rather (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  30.  32
    In the Quagmire of Quibbles: A Dialectical Exploration.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2019 - Synthese 198 (4):3459-3476.
    Criticism may degenerate into quibbling or nitpicking. How can discussants keep quibblers under control? In the paper we investigate cases in which a battle about words replaces a discussion of the matters that are actually at issue as well as cases in which a battle about minor objections replaces a discussion of the major issues. We survey some lines of discussion dealing with these situations in profiles of dialogue.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  31.  45
    A Theory of Modal Dialectics.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1986 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 15 (2):191 - 217.
  32.  97
    The Problem Of Retraction In Critical Discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2001 - Synthese 127 (1):141-159.
    The problem is to find a model of dialogue that allows retractions where they seem reasonable or even required, and puts sanctions on them whenever they would be disruptive of a well-organized process of dialogue. One ty pe of solution will let retraction rules determine which retractions are permissible, and if permissible what the consequences of retraction are. These rules vary according to the type of dialogue and to the type of commitment to which the retraction per tains. To accommodate (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  33. Empirical Logic and Public Debate: Essays in Honour of Else M. Barth.Erik C. W. Krabbe, Renée José Dalitz & Pier A. Smit (eds.) - 1993 - Rodopi.
    Empirical Logic and Public Debate supplies a large number of previously unpublished papers that together make up a survey of recent developments in the field of empirical logic. It contains theoretical contributions, some of a more formal and some of an informal nature, as well as numerous contemporary and historical case studies. The book will therefore be attractive both to those who wish to focus upon the theory and practice of discussion, debate, arguing, and argument, as well as to those (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  34.  41
    The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance.Jan Albert Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):201-224.
    Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convincingly. Other critical reactions convey some or even all of the considerations that make the critic critical of the arguer’s position and direct the arguer to defuse or to at least contend with them. First, an explication of the notion of a critical reaction will be provided, zooming in on the degree of “directiveness” that a critical reaction displays. Second, it will be examined whether (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  35.  20
    Splitting a Difference of Opinion: The Shift to Negotiation.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (3):329-350.
    Negotiation is not only used to settle differences of interest but also to settle differences of opinion. Discussants who are unable to resolve their difference about the objective worth of a policy or action proposal may be willing to abandon their attempts to convince the other and search instead for a compromise that would, for each of them, though only a second choice yet be preferable to a lasting conflict. Our questions are: First, when is it sensible to enter into (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  36.  52
    Topical Roots of Formal Dialectic.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):71-87.
    Formal dialectic has its roots in ancient dialectic. We can trace this influence in Charles Hamblin’s book on fallacies, in which he introduced his first formal dialectical systems. Earlier, Paul Lorenzen proposed systems of dialogical logic, which were in fact formal dialectical systems avant la lettre, with roles similar to those of the Greek Questioner and Answerer. In order to make a comparison between ancient dialectic and contemporary formal dialectic, I shall formalize part of the Aristotelian procedure for Academic debates. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  37. Analysing Complex Argumentation: The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion.Snoeck Henkemans & Arnolda Francisca - 1992 - Sicsat.
    Snoeck, A. F. (1997) Analysing Complex Argumentation. The reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Argumentation in a Critical Discussion.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  38.  63
    Formal Systems of Dialogue Rules.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1985 - Synthese 63 (3):295 - 328.
    Section 1 contains a survey of options in constructing a formal system of dialogue rules. The distinction between material and formal systems is discussed (section 1.1). It is stressed that the material systems are, in several senses, formal as well. In section 1.2 variants as to language form (choices of logical constants and logical rules) are pointed out. Section 1.3 is concerned with options as to initial positions and the permissibility of attacks on elementary statements. The problem of ending a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  39.  44
    On How to Get Beyond the Opening Stage.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (3):233-242.
    Any well-structured argumentative exchange must be preceded by some preparatory stages. In the pragma-dialectical four-stage model of critical discussion, the clarification of issues and positions is relegated to the confrontation stage and the other preparatory matters are dealt within the opening stage. In the opening stage, the parties involved come to agree to discuss their differences and to do so by an argumentative exchange rather than by, say, a sequence of bids and offers. They should also come to agree on (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  40.  39
    Meeting in the House of Callias: Rhetoric and Dialectic. [REVIEW]Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (3):205-217.
    The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe and compare the original goals and perspectives of both rhetoric and dialectic in theory and in practice. Dialectic is the practice and theory of conversations; rhetoric that of speeches. For theory of dialectic, this paper will turn to Aristotle's Topics and Sophistical Refutations; for theory of rhetoric, to his Rhetoric. Thus it will appear that rhetoric and dialectic are pretty close. Yet, on the other hand, there is a long tradition of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  41.  4
    Reply to David Godden’s Commentary on “Splitting a Difference of Opinion”.van Laar Jan Albert & C. W. Krabbe Erik - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42.  33
    Note on a Completeness Theorem in the Theory of Counterfactuals.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1978 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 7 (1):91 - 93.
  43.  8
    Strategies for Strengthening Presumptions and Generating Ethos by Manifestly Ensuring Accountability.Fred Kauffeld & Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    In argumentation, as elsewhere, speakers strategically engage favourable presumptions by manifestly making themselves accountable for their communicative efforts. Such strategies provide the addressee with reasons to regard the speaker as accountable in specific ways and, via that regard for the speaker, with situation-specific rationales for responding positively to what the speaker says. This paper identifies some resources available to arguers for strengthening, elaborating, and focusing such special presumptions. The paper offers an analysis of Barbara Jordan’s “Statement on the Articles of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  44.  10
    So What? Profiles for Relevance Criticism in Persuation Dialogues.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):271-283.
    This paper discusses several types of relevance criticism within dialogue. Relevance criticism is a way one could or should criticize one's partner's contribution in a conversation as being deficient in respect of conversational coherence. The first section tries to narrow down the scope of the subject to manageable proportions. Attention is given to the distinction between criticism of alleged fallacies within dialogue and such criticism as pertains to argumentative texts. Within dialogue one may distigguish tenability criticism, connection criticism, and narrow-type (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  45.  34
    Strategic Maneuvering in Mathematical Proofs.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (3):453-468.
    This paper explores applications of concepts from argumentation theory to mathematical proofs. Note is taken of the various contexts in which proofs occur and of the various objectives they may serve. Examples of strategic maneuvering are discussed when surveying, in proofs, the four stages of argumentation distinguished by pragma-dialectics. Derailments of strategies are seen to encompass more than logical fallacies and to occur both in alleged proofs that are completely out of bounds and in alleged proofs that are at least (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  46.  44
    Formal Systems of Dialogue Rules.Erick C. W. Krabbe - 1984 - Synthese 58 (2):295 - 328.
    Section 1 contains a survey of options in constructing a formal system of dialogue rules. The distinction between material and formal systems is discussed (section 1.1). It is stressed that the material systems are, in several senses, formal as well. In section 1.2 variants as to language form (choices of logical constants and logical rules) are pointed out. Section 1.3 is concerned with options as to initial positions and the permissibility of attacks on elementary statements. The problem of ending a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  47.  18
    That’s No Argument! The Dialectic of Non-Argumentation.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2015 - Synthese 192 (4):1173-1197.
    What if in discussion the critic refuses to recognize an emotionally expressed argument of her interlocutor as an argument, accusing him of having presented no argument at all. In this paper, we shall deal with this reproach, which taken literally amounts to a charge of having committed a fallacy of non-argumentation. As such it is a very strong, if not the ultimate, criticism, which even carries the risk of abandonment of the discussion and can, therefore, not be made without burdening (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  48.  44
    It's All Very Well for You to Talk! Situationally Disqualifying Ad Hominem Attacks.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Douglas Walton - 1993 - Informal Logic 15 (2).
    The situationally disqualifying ad hominem attack is an argumentative move in critical dialogue whereby one participant points out certain features in his adversary's personal situation that are claimed to make it inappropriate for this adversary to take a particular point of view, to argue in a particular way, or to launch certain criticisms. In this paper, we discuss some examples of this way of arguing. Other types of ad hominem argumentation are discussed as well and compared with the situationally disqualifying (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  49.  31
    The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):201-224.
    Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convincingly. Other critical reactions convey some or even all of the considerations that make the critic critical of the arguer’s position and direct the arguer to defuse or to at least contend with them. First, an explication of the notion of a critical reaction will be provided, zooming in on the degree of “directiveness” that a critical reaction displays. Second, it will be examined whether (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  50.  6
    Predicaments of the Concluding Stage.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    Argumentative discussion is successful only if, at the concluding stage, both parties can agree about the result of their enterprise. If they can not, the whole discussion threatens to start all over again. Dialectical ruling should prevent this from happening. The paper investigates whether dialectical rules may enforce a decision one way or the other; either by recognizing some arguments as conclusive or some criticisms as devastating. At the end the pragma-dialectical model appears more successful than even its protagonists have (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000