Add to ORKGHow does the evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argumentation has been put forward? This paper focuses on argumentative bluff in eristic (or: polemic) discussion. Any arguer conveys the pretence that his argumentation is dialectically reasonable and, at least to some degree, rhetorically effective. Within eristic discussion, it can be profitable to bluff that these claims are correct. However, it will be defended that such bluffing is dialectically inadmissible, even within an eristic discussion
This paper discusses the ways in which argumentative discourse prototypically manifests itself. As a...
This paper uses the language of formal dialectics to explore how argumentation schemes and their cri...
In the paper I propose conceptions of argument, of uses of argument, and of argumentation that rely ...
How does the analysis and evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argum...
The paper starts from scepticism that all argumentation is dialogical or that all dialogue types are...
If dialogue is a necessary condition for argument, argumentation in oratory becomes questionable, si...
Van Eemeren and Houtlosser concentrate on the tension inherent in argumentative discourse between th...
This paper attempts to describe the strategic dimension of the eristic dialectic, which is frequentl...
In this paper the authors give a brief overview of the theoretical background of their research proj...
In this paper, I present a dialogue game approach to the argumentation stage of a critical discussio...
Using tools like argument diagrams and profiles of dialogue, this paper studies a number of examples...
Analyzing argumentative discourse is not a an activity exclusively reserved for scholars in argument...
Theoretical and procedural diverseness is a feature characterising the study of argumentation. The ...
This chapter gives an overview of the history of formal argumentation in terms of a distinction betw...
Dialogue is fundamental to argumentation, providing a dialectical basis for establishing which argum...
This paper discusses the ways in which argumentative discourse prototypically manifests itself. As a...
This paper uses the language of formal dialectics to explore how argumentation schemes and their cri...
In the paper I propose conceptions of argument, of uses of argument, and of argumentation that rely ...
How does the analysis and evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argum...
The paper starts from scepticism that all argumentation is dialogical or that all dialogue types are...
If dialogue is a necessary condition for argument, argumentation in oratory becomes questionable, si...
Van Eemeren and Houtlosser concentrate on the tension inherent in argumentative discourse between th...
This paper attempts to describe the strategic dimension of the eristic dialectic, which is frequentl...
In this paper the authors give a brief overview of the theoretical background of their research proj...
In this paper, I present a dialogue game approach to the argumentation stage of a critical discussio...
Using tools like argument diagrams and profiles of dialogue, this paper studies a number of examples...
Analyzing argumentative discourse is not a an activity exclusively reserved for scholars in argument...
Theoretical and procedural diverseness is a feature characterising the study of argumentation. The ...
This chapter gives an overview of the history of formal argumentation in terms of a distinction betw...
Dialogue is fundamental to argumentation, providing a dialectical basis for establishing which argum...
This paper discusses the ways in which argumentative discourse prototypically manifests itself. As a...
This paper uses the language of formal dialectics to explore how argumentation schemes and their cri...
In the paper I propose conceptions of argument, of uses of argument, and of argumentation that rely ...