Location

University of Windsor

Document Type

Paper

Start Date

3-6-2009 9:00 AM

End Date

6-6-2009 5:00 PM

Abstract

How does the evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argumentation has been put forward? This paper focuses on argumentative bluff in eristic (or: polemic) discussion. Any arguer conveys the pretence that his argumentation is dialectically reasonable and, at least to some degree, rhetorically effective. Within eristic discussion, it can be profitable to bluff that these claims are correct. However, it will be defended that such bluffing is dialectically inadmissible, even within an eristic discussion.

Creative Commons License

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

Response to Submission

George Boger, Commentary on van Laar

Reader's Reactions

George Boger, Commentary on van Laar (June 2009)

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS
 
Jun 3rd, 9:00 AM Jun 6th, 5:00 PM

Argumentative Bluff in Eristic Discussion: An analysis and evaluation

University of Windsor

How does the evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argumentation has been put forward? This paper focuses on argumentative bluff in eristic (or: polemic) discussion. Any arguer conveys the pretence that his argumentation is dialectically reasonable and, at least to some degree, rhetorically effective. Within eristic discussion, it can be profitable to bluff that these claims are correct. However, it will be defended that such bluffing is dialectically inadmissible, even within an eristic discussion.