Argumentation最新文献_第2页

In Defense of a Normative Concept of Argument 为论证的规范性概念辩护

IF 1 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2024-04-27 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-024-09629-w

Matthew W. McKeon

引用次数: 0

Framing to Make an Argument: The Case of the Genocide Hashtag in the Russia-Ukraine war 构建论点：俄乌战争中的种族灭绝标签案例

IF 1 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2024-03-02 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-024-09632-1

Elena Musi

引用次数: 0

The Structure of Arguments from Deontic Authority and How to Successfully Attack Them 道义权威论证的结构以及如何成功攻击这些论证

IF 1 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2024-02-08 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-023-09623-8

Michał Araszkiewicz, Marcin Koszowy

{"title":"The Structure of Arguments from Deontic Authority and How to Successfully Attack Them","authors":"Michał Araszkiewicz, Marcin Koszowy","doi":"10.1007/s10503-023-09623-8","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-023-09623-8","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Despite increasing interest in studying arguments from deontic authority of the general form “(1) <span>(delta)</span> is a deontic authority in institution <span>(varOmega)</span>; (2) according to <span>(delta)</span>, I should do <span>(alpha)</span>, <i>C</i>: therefore, (3) I should do <span>(alpha)</span>”, the state of the art models are not capable of grasping their complexity. The existing sets of critical questions assigned to this argumentation scheme seem to conflate two problems: whether a person is subject to an authority of an institution in the first place and whether the command issued within the context of a particular institution is eventually binding. For this reason, we introduce (1) a set of Basic Critical Questions to scrutinize the former issue, and (2) a set of more detailed questions related to specific features, also referred to as “parameters”, of institutional environments (Intra-Institutional Critical Questions). We identify major elements of institutional environments in which authoritative utterances are made and the crucial parameters of arguments from deontic authority. The selected evidence from the decisions of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court helps us show how these parameters may be used to reconstruct subtypes of this argument scheme, with their associated sets of critical questions. In specific institutional contexts, such detailed schemes are capable of grasping the complexity of appeals to deontic authority and thus should be used rather than general schemes. The reconstruction of argumentation schemes with critical questions shows how particular arguments may successfully be attacked.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"38 2","pages":"171 - 198"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-023-09623-8.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139761521","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Evidentiary Convincing and Evidentiary Fallacies 证据说服力和证据谬误

IF 1 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2024-02-07 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-024-09630-3

Eugen Octav Popa, Alexandru I. Cârlan

引用次数: 0

Bootstrapping and Persuasive Argumentation 引导和有说服力的论证

IF 1 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2024-01-19 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-023-09627-4

Guido Melchior

引用次数: 0

Some Benefits and Limitations of Modern Argument Map Representation 现代论证图表示法的一些优点和局限性

IF 1 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2024-01-18 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-023-09626-5

Charles Rathkopf

引用次数: 0

Norms and Practices of Public Argumentation 公共论证的规范与实践

IF 1 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2023-12-29 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-023-09628-3

Jan Albert van Laar, Frank Zenker

引用次数: 0

Presuppositional Fallacies 预设谬误

IF 1 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2023-12-16 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-023-09625-6

Fabrizio Macagno

{"title":"Presuppositional Fallacies","authors":"Fabrizio Macagno","doi":"10.1007/s10503-023-09625-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-023-09625-6","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Presuppositions are at the same time a crucial and almost neglected dimension of arguments and fallacies. Arguments involve different types of presuppositions, which can be used for manipulative purposes in distinct ways. However, what are presuppositions? What is their dialectical function? Why and how can they be dangerous? This paper intends to address these questions by developing the pragmatic approaches to presupposition from a dialectical perspective. The use of presuppositions will be analyzed in terms of presumptive conclusions concerning the interlocutor’s acceptance of a proposition, which can be assessed as reasonable or unacceptable. Their dialectical function is described in terms of dark side commitments attributed to a collective \"voice\" representing what is commonly shared. For this reason, they count as attempts to include the presupposed contents into the hearer’s commitment store, which in some circumstances can reverse the burden of proof. The different manipulative strategies grounded on controversial presuppositions will be examined by showing the distinct roles that the latter play and the relationship between the degrees of presuppositional implicitness and the speaker’s burden of retraction.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"38 2","pages":"109 - 140"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-023-09625-6.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138692822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

It’s not (only) about Getting the Last Word: Rhetorical Norms of Public Argumentation and the Responsibility to Keep the Conversation Going 它不(仅仅)是关于最后一句话:公共辩论的修辞规范和保持对话进行的责任

IF 1 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2023-11-22 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-023-09622-9

Mette Bengtsson, Lisa Villadsen

{"title":"It’s not (only) about Getting the Last Word: Rhetorical Norms of Public Argumentation and the Responsibility to Keep the Conversation Going","authors":"Mette Bengtsson, Lisa Villadsen","doi":"10.1007/s10503-023-09622-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-023-09622-9","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The core function of argumentation in a democratic setting must be to constitute a modality for citizens to engage differences of opinion constructively – for the present but also in future exchanges. To enable this function requires acceptance of the basic conditions of public debate: that consensus is often an illusory goal which should be replaced by better mastery of living with dissent and compromise. Furthermore, it calls for an understanding of the complexity of real-life public debate which is an intermixture of claims of fact, definition, value, and policy, each of which calls for an awareness of the greater ‘debate environment’ of which particular deliberative exchanges are part. We introduce a rhetorical meta-norm as an evaluation criterion for public debate. In continuation of previous scholarship concerned with how to create room for differences of opinion and how to foster a sustainable debate culture, we work from a civically oriented conception of rhetoric. This conception is less instrumental and more concerned with the role of communication in public life and the maintenance of the democratic state. A rhetorical meta-norm of public argumentation is useful when evaluating public argumentation – not as the only norm, but integrated with specific norms from rhetoric, pragma-dialectics, and formal logic. We contextualise our claims through an example of authentic contemporary public argumentation: a debate over a biogas generator in rural Denmark.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"38 1","pages":"41 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-023-09622-9.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138495566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Correction: Individual Differences in Argument Strength Discrimination 更正：论证强度辨别的个体差异

IF 1 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2023-09-25 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-023-09621-w

Annika M. Svedholm-Häkkinen, Mika Hietanen, Jonathan Baron

引用次数: 0