In this paper, I critically examine the main accounts of goals in argumentative discourse, aiming to formulate an account that is suitable for the examination of public political arguments, where typically multiple legitimate goals are pursued simultaneously. Such arguments are viewed as contributions to what can be dialectically reconstructed as multiple simultaneous discussions, and are analysed as strategic manoeuvres that can under certain conditions be reasonable but may, if such conditions are violated, become fallacious
Abstract. Debating agents have often different areas of expertise and conflicting opinions on the su...
In argumentative discourse, there are two kinds of activity-dispute and deliberation-that depend on ...
In argumentative discourse, there are two kinds of activity-dispute and deliberation-that depend on ...
According to the canons of Informal Logic the goal of an argument is to persuade one’s opposer of th...
During the deliberation phase in practical reasoning, an intelligent agent generates a set of pursua...
In public political discussions, an accusation of inconsistency can play a role in a number of discu...
From a decision theoretic perspective, arguments stem from decisions made by arguers. Despite some p...
SFRH/BPD/76149/2011 UID/FIL/00183/2013In this essay, I highlight the strategic discursive choices ma...
This paper contrasts two views of the necessity to manifest the rational adequacy of argumentation. ...
This study argues that the rationality behind strategic decisions, which is characterized as express...
The theory of argumentation is based on the assumption thatarguments pervade and partly regulate all...
Abstract: Argument teachers and scholars have frequently invoked external justification-impressing o...
Following Rescher’s (1977) conception of dialectics, I argue for the view that the dialectical aspec...
This position paper of Working Group 2 of the European Network for Argumentation and Public Policy A...
Practical reasoning (PR), which is concerned with the generic question of what to do, is generally s...
Abstract. Debating agents have often different areas of expertise and conflicting opinions on the su...
In argumentative discourse, there are two kinds of activity-dispute and deliberation-that depend on ...
In argumentative discourse, there are two kinds of activity-dispute and deliberation-that depend on ...
According to the canons of Informal Logic the goal of an argument is to persuade one’s opposer of th...
During the deliberation phase in practical reasoning, an intelligent agent generates a set of pursua...
In public political discussions, an accusation of inconsistency can play a role in a number of discu...
From a decision theoretic perspective, arguments stem from decisions made by arguers. Despite some p...
SFRH/BPD/76149/2011 UID/FIL/00183/2013In this essay, I highlight the strategic discursive choices ma...
This paper contrasts two views of the necessity to manifest the rational adequacy of argumentation. ...
This study argues that the rationality behind strategic decisions, which is characterized as express...
The theory of argumentation is based on the assumption thatarguments pervade and partly regulate all...
Abstract: Argument teachers and scholars have frequently invoked external justification-impressing o...
Following Rescher’s (1977) conception of dialectics, I argue for the view that the dialectical aspec...
This position paper of Working Group 2 of the European Network for Argumentation and Public Policy A...
Practical reasoning (PR), which is concerned with the generic question of what to do, is generally s...
Abstract. Debating agents have often different areas of expertise and conflicting opinions on the su...
In argumentative discourse, there are two kinds of activity-dispute and deliberation-that depend on ...
In argumentative discourse, there are two kinds of activity-dispute and deliberation-that depend on ...