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
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
Michael Manley-Casimir, Commentary on Plug
Reader's Reactions
David Hitchcock, Commentary on Plumer (May 1999)
Included in
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.
