Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies
Studies in Logic Grammar and Rhetoric2014Vol. 36(1), pp. 193–218
Citations Over TimeTop 10% of 2014 papers
Abstract
Abstract Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants (di-logue). What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for (poly-logues)? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.
Related Papers
- → Argumentation in Higher Education: Examples of Actual Practices with Argumentation Tools(2009)24 cited
- → Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse with the Help of Speech Act Conditions(2015)
- → Prevailing Arguments and Types of Conclusions of Parent–Child Argumentation(2019)
- → Conclusions(2019)
- → Descriptive Analysis of Polylogues(2022)