A Systematic Theory of Argumentation

Abstract

In this book two of the leading figures in argumentation theory present a view of argumentation as a means of resolving differences of opinion by testing the acceptability of the disputed positions. Their model of a 'critical discussion' serves as a theoretical tool for analysing, evaluating and producing argumentative discourse. They develop a method for the reconstruction of argumentative discourse that takes into account all aspects that are relevant to a critical assessment. They also propose a practical code of behaviour for discussants who want to resolve their differences in a reasonable way. This is a major contribution to the study of argumentation and will be of particular value to professionals and graduate students in speech communication, informal logic, rhetoric, critical thinking, linguistics, and philosophy.

The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance

“…The general idea is that disclosing motivations for being critically disposed towards the proponent's position will improve the quality of the discussion and is in some circumstances even necessary for obtaining a resolution. The proposals we shall develop can be used to modify existing models of pragma-dialectics (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004) and formal dialectic (Walton & Krabbe, 1995).…”

“…But a norm may also be appealed to merely because the criticism puts one's interlocutor under some kind of obligation, as for instance when a critic expresses critical doubt vis-à-vis a standpoint taken by his interlocutor making the latter incur an unconditional burden of proof. Norms appealed to can be rules of critical discussion (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004), which determine whether or not a fallacy has been committed, but they can also be norms of optimality, which 2 See preceding note. 3 In this paper, we subsume criticism focused on the initial standpoint under tenability criticism, whereas earlier tenability criticism was restricted to criticism focused on premises (Krabbe, 2002(Krabbe, , 2007.…”

“…Therefore, we shall present a brief survey of things that can go wrong when the opponent advances a critical reaction, or when the proponent requests the opponent to provide reasons for her critical reaction, or when the opponent, in turn, responds to such requests. We make a distinction between (1) violations of the rules for critical discussion, which are called fallacies (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1992;2004), (2) violations of the rules of a particular type of institutionalized activity, which we label faults, and (3) moves that contravene the optimality rules, which are labeled as weak moves, and sometimes as blunders (Krabbe and van Laar, 2011a;2011b). However, the survey below will be restricted to fallacies.…”

“…Proponents are to present arguments for their assertions on request and to answer criticisms of their arguments, whereas opponents are free to, and are even encouraged to, express all kinds of criticism (Johnson, 2000;van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). This is the rough picture, for it has been pointed out that proponents must be free to express their standpoints and arguments, whereas an opponent's criticisms should conform to conditions of clarity and relevance (for instance, they should avoid the Fallacy of Straw Man).…”

On How to Get Beyond the Opening Stage

“…The opening stage-as many will know-is one of the four discussion stages contained in the familiar pragma-dialectical model of critical discussion (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1984, 1992, 2004, which constitutes a normative model for argumentative activities aimed at the resolution of a difference of opinion. It is one of the merits of this model that, in its description of the ideal argumentative process, it does not limit itself to argumentation in the proper, but narrow, sense of advancing arguments for a standpoint, but includes discussion stages where other necessary steps for the resolution of differences of opinion are located.…”