Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/springer-journals/reflections-on-theoretical-issues-in-argumentation-theory-missed-WIlMgEtqPd
References (7)
-
T. Govier (1985)
A practical study of argument -
T. Govier (2018)
Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation -
Daniel Cohen (2013)
Virtue, In ContextInformal Logic, 33
-
F. Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, A. Henkemans, J. Blair, Ralph Johnson, E. Krabbe, C. Plantin, D. Walton, C. Willard, J. Woods, D. Zarefsky (1996)
Fundamentals Of Argumentation Theory -
F. Eemeren, R. Grootendorst (1984)
Speech acts in argumentative discussions -
J. Blair (2013)
Meta-Argumentation. an Approach to Logic and Argumentation Theory -
D. O’Keefe (1977)
Two Concepts of Argument.The Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Copyright
- © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
- ISBN
- 978-3-319-21102-2
- Pages
- 121 –130
- DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_9
- Publisher site
- See Chapter on Publisher Site
Abstract
[Why do we hold arguers culpable for missing obvious objections against their arguments but not for missing obvious lines of reasoning for their positions? In both cases, their arguments are not as strong as they could be. Two factors cause this: adversarial models of argumentation and the permeable boundaries separating argumentation, meta-argumentation, and argument evaluation. Strategic considerations and dialectical obligations partially justify the asymmetry; virtue argumentation theory explains when and why it is not justified.]
Published: Aug 9, 2015
Keywords: Argument Evaluation; Chess Player; Adversarial Model; Final Appeal; Virtuous Arguer