Browsing All posts tagged under »foundational work«

Actually existing rules for closing arguments

July 14, 2012

0

Arguing is unruly.

Theoretical pieties, Johnstone’s impiety, and ordinary views of argumentation

July 14, 2012

0

We teachers of argument have nothing to apologize for.

Argument has no function

July 14, 2012

0

Argument has no determinable function in the sense Walton needs, and even if it did, that function would not ground norms for argumentative practice.

What if arguing is central?

July 13, 2012

0

What Smith taught, what Smith said he was teaching, and what my students want to learn: they all line up.

The public sphere and the norms of transactional argument

July 13, 2012

0

Papers by Asen and Rehg get us halfway to an understanding of the activity of arguing in the public sphere.

What does arguing look like?

July 13, 2012

0

At first glance, arguing does look angry and futile. But on second view, it's more complicated.

We should be studying the norms of debate

July 13, 2012

0

Argumentation theorists and scholars in the forensic debate community should start talking again--about the norms of debate.

One question, two answers

July 13, 2012

0

I lay out the basics of "design theory"--a/k/a the normative pragmatics of arguing, particularly in contrast to other approaches.

Johnstone’s still-unacknowledged contributions to contemporary argumentation theory

July 13, 2012

0

Given the pragmatic turn recently taken by argumentation studies, we owe renewed attention to Henry Johnstone's views on the primacy of process over product.

Comments on Scott Jacobs’ ‘Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics’

July 13, 2012

0

I lay out the basic working principles of a normative pragmatic approach to argumentation.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.