We teachers of argument have nothing to apologize for.
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 Smith taught, what Smith said he was teaching, and what my students want to learn: they all line up.
Papers by Asen and Rehg get us halfway to an understanding of the activity of arguing in the public sphere.
At first glance, arguing does look angry and futile. But on second view, it's more complicated.
Argumentation theorists and scholars in the forensic debate community should start talking again--about the norms of debate.
I lay out the basics of "design theory"--a/k/a the normative pragmatics of arguing, particularly in contrast to other approaches.
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.
I lay out the basic working principles of a normative pragmatic approach to argumentation.