Document Type

Paper

Start Date

15-5-1999 9:00 AM

End Date

17-5-1999 5:00 PM

Abstract

From a (pragma) dialectical point of view, the evaluation of argumentation includes consideration of how well it deals with counter-arguments. This corresponds with one of the requirements developed in Dutch jurisprudence: if the justification of a ju dicial decision does not reflect on essential counter-arguments, the decision may be quashed in appeal. I will first examine what textual clues identify counter-arguments and objections, and then discuss the criteria that are used in legal practice to ev aluate how well the justification responds to counter-arguments and objections. Finally, I compare these with proposals for dialectical criteria.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Response to Submission

Michael Manley-Casimir, Commentary on Plug

Reader's Reactions

David Hitchcock, Commentary on Plumer (May 1999)

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS
 
May 15th, 9:00 AM May 17th, 5:00 PM

The analysis and evaluation of counter-arguments in judicial decisions

From a (pragma) dialectical point of view, the evaluation of argumentation includes consideration of how well it deals with counter-arguments. This corresponds with one of the requirements developed in Dutch jurisprudence: if the justification of a ju dicial decision does not reflect on essential counter-arguments, the decision may be quashed in appeal. I will first examine what textual clues identify counter-arguments and objections, and then discuss the criteria that are used in legal practice to ev aluate how well the justification responds to counter-arguments and objections. Finally, I compare these with proposals for dialectical criteria.