Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Keywords
argumentation, dialectic, fallacies, false dilemma, polylogue, straw man
Start Date
22-5-2013 9:00 AM
End Date
25-5-2013 5:00 PM
Abstract
Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants (di-logue). What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for (poly-logues)? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
Cathal Woods, Commentary on: Marcin Lewiński's "Polylogical fallacies: Are there any?"
Reader's Reactions
Cathal Woods, Commentary on: Marcin Lewiński's "Polylogical fallacies: Are there any?" (May 2013)
Included in
Polylogical fallacies: Are there any?
University of Windsor
Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants (di-logue). What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for (poly-logues)? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.
