ArgumentationPub Date : 2025-05-20DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09656-1
Jianfeng Wang
{"title":"Chinese Argument from Qi 氣 and the Place of Ethos in the Kisceral Mode","authors":"Jianfeng Wang","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09656-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09656-1","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The invention of the term <i>kisceral</i> by Michael Gilbert opens a vast field of human communication that correlates to the intuitive, the religious, the spiritual, the imaginative, and the mystical. However, the ingenuity of the coinage <i>kisceral</i> seems to be inherent with problems, i.e. linguistic fuzziness originating from the Japanese loanword, and conceptual ambiguity of argument from ethos, which are subject to endless reinterpretation by Michael Gilbert himself and others. The source of the problems comes partly from the Japanese loanword <i>ki </i>気 and partly from the contemporary readings of the Aristotelian mode of arguing from ethos. A case-based close reading of <i>zhengqi ge</i> 正氣歌 (<i>The Song of the Righteous Qi</i>) speaks to the long tradition of Chinese philosophy of <i>qi</i> 氣, from which originates the argument from ethos, and argument from sign that centers on the power of judgment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"39 2","pages":"279 - 294"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145168116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ArgumentationPub Date : 2025-05-19DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09658-z
Hubert Marraud
{"title":"A Case for a Reasons-Based Theory of Argument","authors":"Hubert Marraud","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09658-z","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09658-z","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A very basic intuition is that argumentation is about giving reasons. This is recognized, for example, when it is stated that the object of study of argumentation theory is argumentative practices that consist, in whole or in part, but, at least, to a significant extent, of asking for, giving, and examining reasons. But this consensus does not translate into theory. In fact, reasons occupy a modest place in argumentation theory. Logical properties can be understood in terms of reasons or in terms of inferences, and in this sense, we can contrast reasons-based theories of argument with inference-based theories of argument. I will first show that the distinction between reasons-based and inference-based theories of argument is robust, and that there is a real difference between them. I will then argue that, as far as argumentation is concerned, a logical approach based on reasons is preferable to one based on inferences.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"39 4","pages":"491 - 507"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-025-09658-z.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145449700","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}
ArgumentationPub Date : 2025-05-14DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09654-3
Marcin Lewiński
{"title":"One Concept of Argument","authors":"Marcin Lewiński","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09654-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09654-3","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Part of the business of argumentation theory involves resolving a conceptual dispute over what argumentation and argument are in the first place. This dispute has produced various “concepts of argument.” The goal of this paper is twofold: (1) to develop a complete ontology of argumentative phenomena, capable of accounting for various conceptions of argument—something, as I argue, that is badly wanting in argumentation theory; and, within this ontology, (2) to defend a position that there is but one concept of argument needed to grasp these diverse phenomena and conceptions of argument and argumentation. I move in four steps. First, I briefly sketch the discussion over arguments-as-activities and arguments-as-products. Second, I go back to the classic work of Twardowski on actions and products and adapt it for argumentation theory, producing a complex yet systematically organized conceptual ontology of argument and argumentation. This conceptual housekeeping allows me, third, to critically engage some of the recent, Frege-inspired philosophical literature on the concept of argument, while defending act-based approaches to argument(ation). Fourth, I present a positive proposal of a minimal, contrastivist concept of argument as <i>a set of reasons advanced to support a conclusion C</i><sub><i>1</i></sub><i> rather than another conclusion C</i><sub><i>n</i></sub>.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"39 3","pages":"393 - 418"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-025-09654-3.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145073770","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}
ArgumentationPub Date : 2025-04-18DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09655-2
Szymon Makuła
{"title":"An Analogy-Based Approach to Argument Evaluation","authors":"Szymon Makuła","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09655-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09655-2","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper presents an analogy-based approach to argument evaluation, combining logical analogy, argumentation schemes, and Szymanek’s explanation transmission method to assess the strength of arguments. The proposed framework introduces <i>Strong Argument Schemes (SAS)</i>, which represent idealized argument structures incorporating the best possible answers to critical questions called critical premises. The method allows for systematically comparing and evaluating argument strength by mapping actual arguments to these strong schemes. This approach addresses limitations in traditional critical question-based evaluations and provides a unified procedure for assessing defeasible arguments.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"39 4","pages":"545 - 570"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145449656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ArgumentationPub Date : 2025-03-27DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09653-4
Chuanrui Zhang, Zelin Fan, Cihua Xu
{"title":"Exploring Visual Argument from Latent Authority in Short Video Advertising","authors":"Chuanrui Zhang, Zelin Fan, Cihua Xu","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09653-4","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09653-4","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Visual argumentation has attracted the attention of argumentation theorists for several decades, with research focus evolving from the legitimacy of the use of visuals in argumentation to exploring how images can function as integral parts of argumentation. Scholars (e.g., Kjeldsen 2015b, 2016) have noted that images perform dual functions in argumentation: as symbols contributing <i>noesis</i> and as phenomena invoking <i>aesthesis</i>. Building on this foundation, the present study focuses on latent images that are overlooked in current argumentation studies. It is argued that latent images are conveyed in an “expressed implicit” manner. These images not only serve as visual flags to capture the audience’s attention and harness the advantages of visual representation to deliver direct sensory stimulation, but also reshape the original structure of visual argumentation and argument schemes. Short video advertisements for financial management courses are discussed as a case study to demonstrate how one specific type of argument by latent images—visual argument from latent authority—achieves an interplay of <i>noesis</i> and <i>aesthesis</i>, thereby transforming the original argumentative structure, establishing various forms of authority, and maneuvering strategically to deliver a direct emotional impact to the audience and shift the burden of proof.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"39 2","pages":"213 - 240"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145169480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ArgumentationPub Date : 2025-03-13DOI: 10.1007/s10503-024-09647-8
Igor Martinjak, Jakub Pruś
{"title":"A Refined Concept of A Fortiori Arguments for Argumentation Theory","authors":"Igor Martinjak, Jakub Pruś","doi":"10.1007/s10503-024-09647-8","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-024-09647-8","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The main goal of the paper is to provide the theoretical model for the a fortiori argument. After a brief history of a fortiori argument (especially in the works of Aristotle, Alexander, Cicero, and Boethius) we propose its general concept, components, and argumentation schemes, its classification, and finally, criteria for assessment. The main reason for this research is that this type of argument receives little attention in contemporary argumentation theory, and consequently critical thinking students have little knowledge of it, and yet, a fortiori arguments (or “arguments from the stronger”) are prevalent in both, academic and public, discourse. Therefore, the need to incorporate the concept of a fortiori argument into argumentation theory seems even more crucial. Additionally, we develop the diagrammatic method of assessing the inference in such arguments to finally present four critical questions needed for a critical evaluation of a fortiori argument.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"39 1","pages":"103 - 128"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143716653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ArgumentationPub Date : 2025-02-19DOI: 10.1007/s10503-024-09649-6
Andrew Schumann, Elena Lisanyuk
{"title":"Legal Normativism, Argumentation and Logic","authors":"Andrew Schumann, Elena Lisanyuk","doi":"10.1007/s10503-024-09649-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-024-09649-6","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The paper substantiates the prospects of normativism in law, namely the possibility of using purely logical means to make a judgment as a logical conclusion. The main criticism of normativism is based on the possibility of conflicts of judicial decisions and especially on conflicts of the norms themselves, when a court under similar circumstances can make opposing decisions which are formally valid. Critics of normativism argue that logic is helpless in resolving the conflicts and that higher justice must be guided by the discretion of judges who share common values or a common ideology, especially in the case of totalitarian societies. However, we show that there are two types of logical argumentation in the elimination of these conflicts: (a) Aristotelian, when a more general basis is sought, from which only one of the contradictions follows; (b) non-Aristotelian, when a compromise is reached between two contrary statements. In the second case, this technique is used mainly for civil cases. Moreover, this technique is quite formal and does not require an appeal to paraconsistent or other non-classical logics for eliminating the conflict. Using two recent court cases, we demonstrate how the proposed two types of logical argumentation work.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"39 1","pages":"45 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143716847","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ArgumentationPub Date : 2025-02-14DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09652-5
Frans van Eemeren
{"title":"Changes in the Editorship of the Journal Argumentation","authors":"Frans van Eemeren","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09652-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09652-5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"39 1","pages":"1 - 2"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143716693","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ArgumentationPub Date : 2025-02-07DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09651-6
Hédi Virág Csordás, István Danka
{"title":"Strategic Manoeuvring in the Depp-Heard Defamation Trial 2022: Dual Dialectical Goals and a Topical Shift","authors":"Hédi Virág Csordás, István Danka","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09651-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09651-6","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In pragma-dialectics, a study of legal reasoning analyses judicial judgements’ dialectical and rhetorical aspects. Most analytical studies of legal reasoning focus on the role of judges and their decision-making mechanisms. In our study, we focus on the strategic manoeuvring of the opposing parties. Depending on the context, parties may have to justify their decision to litigants, a professional audience, and the public in rhetorically and dialectically different ways. What makes strategic manoeuvring special in judicial trials is that rhetorical aims (winning the debate) and dialectical aims (convincing the jury), in contrast with debates where parties dialectically aim at resolving a dispute by reaching consensus, are not in conflict. We analyse the Depp ctr. Heard trial 2022, focusing on the parties’ dialectical potential in cases when rhetorical aspects play an important role in addition to objective evidence required by the legal framework. Depp’s party started the trial with a strategic movement we shall call as a ‘topical shift’, doubling their starting position, aiming at dual dialectical goals, and hence also beginning a new debate parallel with the apparently only one by introducing a not directly relevant factor into the debate. Although other factors also played a role in Depp’s victory, setting up his position in the confrontation stage this way was decisive for the trial’s outcome: Heard’s party, following a traditional route, joined actively in one of the dual debates only, effectively giving up the extra debate started by Depp. This way, analysing the trial offers wider consequences to how to understand strategic manoeuvring in judicial trials, and in general as well.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"39 1","pages":"21 - 43"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-025-09651-6.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143716690","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}