This paper examines arguments that take counterconsiderations into account, and it does so from a dialogical point of view. According to this account, a counterconsideration is part of a critical reaction from a real or imagined opponent, and an arguer may take it into account in his argument in at least six fully responsive ways. Conductive arguments (or: pro and con arguments, balance of considerations arguments) will be characterized as one of these types. In this manner, the paper aims to show how conductive, and related kinds of argument can be understood dialogically
Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convincingly. O...
A key and continuing concern within the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is how to account...
Carl Wellman (1971) introduced the reasoning-type conduction while en-dorsing a dialectical view on ...
This paper examines arguments that take counter- considerations into account, and it does so from a ...
Abstract: This paper examines arguments that take counter-considerations into account, and it does s...
This paper examines arguments that take counterconsiderations into account, and it does so from a di...
This paper is to argue that conductive arguments could be understood from a rhetorical perspective. ...
The topic of conductive argument has attracted much attention in recent argumentation studies, but m...
In pro and con arguments, an arguer acknowledges that there are points against the conclu-sion reach...
Conductive arguments, as a separate category of reasoning, has experienced a revival. In 2010, the ...
This commentary presents the view that "conductive argument" is an argumentation structure rather th...
Conductive argumentsThe term “conduction” introduced by Wellman in 1971 is almost absent...
This paper attempts to systematically characterize critical reactions in argumentative discourse, su...
ABSTRACT: This paper attempts to systematically characterize critical reactions in argumentative dis...
Abstract Using tools like argument diagrams and profiles of dialogue, this paper studies a number of...
Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convincingly. O...
A key and continuing concern within the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is how to account...
Carl Wellman (1971) introduced the reasoning-type conduction while en-dorsing a dialectical view on ...
This paper examines arguments that take counter- considerations into account, and it does so from a ...
Abstract: This paper examines arguments that take counter-considerations into account, and it does s...
This paper examines arguments that take counterconsiderations into account, and it does so from a di...
This paper is to argue that conductive arguments could be understood from a rhetorical perspective. ...
The topic of conductive argument has attracted much attention in recent argumentation studies, but m...
In pro and con arguments, an arguer acknowledges that there are points against the conclu-sion reach...
Conductive arguments, as a separate category of reasoning, has experienced a revival. In 2010, the ...
This commentary presents the view that "conductive argument" is an argumentation structure rather th...
Conductive argumentsThe term “conduction” introduced by Wellman in 1971 is almost absent...
This paper attempts to systematically characterize critical reactions in argumentative discourse, su...
ABSTRACT: This paper attempts to systematically characterize critical reactions in argumentative dis...
Abstract Using tools like argument diagrams and profiles of dialogue, this paper studies a number of...
Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convincingly. O...
A key and continuing concern within the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is how to account...
Carl Wellman (1971) introduced the reasoning-type conduction while en-dorsing a dialectical view on ...