Argumentation in large, complex practices

Mark Aakhus, Rutgers University, School of Communication & Information
Paul Ziek, Pace University, Dyson College
Punit Dadlani, Rutgers University, School of Communication & Information

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Patrick Bondy, “Bias in Legitimate Ad Hominem Arguments”

Andrew Aberdein, Florida Institute of Technology - Melbourne

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Virtue Argumentation and Bias

Andrew Aberdein, Florida Institute of Technology - Melbourne

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

A (Modest) Defense of Fallacy Theory

Scott F. Aikin, Vanderbilt University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary On Enthymemes and Fallacy Gaps: Commentary on Paglieri

Scott F. Aikin, Vanderbilt University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Evaluating Narrative Arguments

Khameiel Al Tamimi, York University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Sheldon Wein's "Biases, bumps, nudges, query lists, and zero tolerance policies"

Derek Allen, University of Toronto

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Ethical argumentation, objectivity, and bias

Derek Allen, University of Toronto

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Reply to commentary on "Ethical argumentation, objectivity, and bias"

Derek Allen, University of Toronto

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Ad Stuprum: The Fallacy of Appeal to Sex

Beverley I. Anger Ms., McMaster University
Catherine Hundleby Dr., University of Windsor

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Responding to Charges of Climate Hype

Adam Auch, Dalhousie University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

DAMed If You Do; DAMed If You Don’t: Cohen’s “Missed Opportunities”

Sharon Bailin
Mark Battersby, Critical Inquiry Group

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

The Willingness to be Rationally Persuaded

Michael D. Baumtrog, Unversidade Nova de Lisboa

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Comments on Argumentative patterns in plenary debates in the European Parliament by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen

William Benoit, Ohio University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Yun Xie’s “Arguing Conductively or Arguing Strategically?”

Lilian Bermejo-Luque

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

What should a normative theory of argumentation look like?

Lilian Bermejo-Luque

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Mapping objectivity and bias in relation to argument

J. Anthony Blair, University of Windsor, Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Andrew Aberdein’s “Virtue argumentation and bias”

John Anthony Blair, University of Windsor, CRRAR

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Bias in Legitimate Ad Hominem Arguments

Patrick Bondy, Trent University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Jean Goodwin, "Objectivity in controversial science communication: a case study of Kevin Folta"

Patrick Bondy

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Reply to Commentary on “Patrick Bondy, Bias in Legitimate Ad Hominem Arguments”

Patrick Bondy, Trent University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Explicating and Negotiating Bias in Interdisciplinary Argumentation Using Abductive Tools

Tracy A. Bowell, University of Waikato

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Open Mindedness

Tracy A. Bowell Dr, University of Waikato
Justine Kingsbury Dr, University of Waikato

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on “The Normative Significance of Deep Disagreement”

Chris Campolo, Hendrix College

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Mark Twain, Argumentation Theorist

Chris Campolo, Hendrix College

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Emotional Legal Arguments and a Broken Leg

Linda Carozza, York University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Emotional Arguments: What would Neuroscientists and Psychologists say?

Linda Carozza, York University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

The Stance of Personal Public Apology

Martha S. Cheng

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Emotional Arguments: What Would Neuroscientists and Psychologists Say? by Linda Carozza

Ioana A. Cionea, University of Oklahoma

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Ami Mamolo on argumentation and infinity

Daniel H. Cohen

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on MIchael Yong-Set's ludological approach to argumentation

Daniel H. Cohen

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Virtuous Vices: On Objectivity, Bias, and Virtue in Argumentation

Daniel H. Cohen
Katharina Stevens, McMaster University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Emotional legal arguments and a broken leg

RUBENS DAMASCENO-MORAIS, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE GOIÂNIA

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Reply to commentary on ‘Emotional legal arguments and a broken leg’

RUBENS DAMASCENO-MORAIS, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE GOIÂNIA

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on ‘On Being Objective: Hard data, soft data and baseball’

Tim Dare, University of Auckland

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

The Normative Significance of Deep Disagreement

Tim Dare, University of Auckland

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on "Two-Wise and Three-Wise Similarity, and Non-Deductive Analogical Arguments"

Ian Dove, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

On Appeals to (Visual) Models

Ian Dove, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on: Frank Zenkers’s “The polysemy of ‘fallacy’– or ‘bias’, for that matter”

Michel Dufour, University Sorbonne-Nouvelle

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

On the difference between fallacy and sophism

Michel Dufour, University Sorbonne-Nouvelle

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Levels of Depth in Deep Disagreement

Claudio Duran, York University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Legitimizing Past Actions through Appeals to Moral Values

rania Elnakkouzi, Lancaster University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts

Robert H. Ennis PhD, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Uses of arguments from definition in children’s argumentation

Daniel Fasko Jr, Bowling Green State University - Main Campus

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Arguments from Expert Opinion and Persistent Bias

John Fields, Edgewood College

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Objectivity, Autonomy, and the use of Arguments from Authority

John Fields, Edgewood College

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on: John Fields’s “Objectivity, Autonomy, and the Use of Arguments from Authority”

Maurice A. Finocchiaro, University of Nevada Las Vegas

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Economic Reasoning and Fallacy of Composition: Pursuing a Woods-Walton Thesis

Maurice A. Finocchiaro, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Department of Philosophy

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Reply to commentary on "The Method of Relevant Variables, Objectivity, and Bias"

James B. Freeman, Hunter College of The City University of New York

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

The Method of Relevant Variables, Objectivity, and Boas

James B. Freeman, Hunter College of The City University of New York

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Michael Hoppmann’s On the objectivity of Norms of Argumentation

Bart Garssen, University of Amsterdam

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Pursuing objectivity: How virtuous can you get?

José Ángel Gascón, Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

On Being Objective: Hard data, soft data and baseball.

Michael A. Gilbert, York University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Jan Albert van Laar and Erik C. W. Krabbe, “Splitting a Difference of Opinion”

David Godden, Michigan State University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Pushing the Bounds of Rationality: Argumentation and Extended Cognition

G.C. Goddu

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

On the Very Concept of an Enthymeme

G.C. Goddu

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on “America vs. Apple: the Argumentative Function of Metonyms”: Defeasible Rhetoric: Networks, Security, & Metonyms

G Thomas Goodnight, University of Southern California

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on “The Stance of Personal Public Apology”: Transgression & Apologia: Disjoining Standpoints of Justice, Publicity and Drama

G Thomas Goodnight, University of Southern California

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on “Where is the reasonable?”

Jean Goodwin, North Carolina State University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Demonstrating objectivity in controversial science communication: A case study of GMO scientist Kevin Folta

Jean Goodwin, North Carolina State University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Outstanding Questions about Analogies

Trudy Govier

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Compassion, Authority and Baby Talk: Prosody and Objectivity

Leo Groarke, Trent University
Gabrijela Kišiček, University of Zagreb

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Trudy Govier’s “Some Outstanding Questions about Analogies”

Marcello Guarini

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Two-wise and Three-wise Similarity, and Non-deductive Analogical Arguments

Marcello Guarini

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Thinking Critically About Beliefs it’s Hard to Think Critically About

Benjamin Hamby Ph.D., Coastal Carolina University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Why NOT teach critical thinking.

Benjamin Hamby Ph.D., Coastal Carolina University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Couples’ Dialogue Orientations

Dale Hample, University of Maryland - College Park
Ioana A. Cionea, University of Oklahoma Norman Campus

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Revising Toulmin’s Model: Argumentative Cell and the Bias of Objectivity

Thierry Herman, University of Neuchatel and Lausanne

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Tone Kvernbekk’s “Comparing two models of evidence”

David Hitchcock, McMaster University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Reply to commentary on “Transsubjectivity”

David Hitchcock, McMaster University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Transsubjectivity

David Hitchcock, McMaster University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Cionea and Hample

Michael Hoppmann, Northeastern University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

On the Objectivity of Norms of Argumentation

Michael Hoppmann, Northeastern University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on The Emotional Life of Reason: Exploring Conceptions of Objectivity

Moira Howes

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on “Compassion, authority and baby talk: Prosody and objectivity"

Beth Innocenti, University of Kansas Main Campus

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on “Inducing a Sympathetic (Empathic) Reception for Exhortation”

Sally Jackson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on “Conspiracy and Bias: Argumentative Features and Persuasiveness of Conspiracy Theories”

Scott Jacobs, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on: Steve Oswald’s “Conspiracy and Bias: Argumentative Features and Persuasiveness of Conspiracy Theories”

Scott Jacobs

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

The strategic formulation of abductive arguments in everyday reasoning

Henrike Jansen, Leiden University Centre for Linguistics

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

COMMENTARY ON ‘APPROACHING LOGOS AMONG REASON, RATIONALITY AND REASONABLE’

Ralph Johnson

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

On Distinguishing Between an Objection and a Criticism

Ralph H. Johnson, University of Windsor

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Inducing a Sympathetic (Empathic) Reception for Exhortation

Fred J. Kauffeld, Edgewood College, Communication Studies
Beth Innocenti, University of Kansas

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on ‘Levels of Depth in Deep Disagreement’

Tim Kenyon, University of Waterloo

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on "Mapping objectivity and bias in relation to argument"

Justine M. Kingsbury, University of Waikato

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Reply to commentary on Thinking Critically About Beliefs it’s Hard to Think Critically About

Justine M. Kingsbury, University of Waikato
Tracy Bowell, University of Waikato

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Thinking critically about beliefs it's hard to think critically about

Justine M. Kingsbury, University of Waikato
Tracy A. Bowell, University of Waikato

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on “Strategies of objectification in opinion articles: the case of evidentials”: A call to study evidentials in argumentation

Susan L. Kline, Ohio State University - Main Campus

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Altruistic Argument in the Demand-Withdraw Pattern in Interpersonal Disputes

Susan L. Kline, Ohio State University - Main Campus
Wen Song Sichuan University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on “Argumentation Mining in Parliamentary Discourse”

Moira Kloster, University of Fraser Valley

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Another dimension to deep disagreements: trust in argumentation

Moira L. Kloster, University of the Fraser Valley

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on “The use of arguments a fortiori in decision making”

Takuzo Konishi, Showa Women's University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

When Different Perspectives Interact: A Historical Account of Informal Logic between 1983 and 1987

Takuzo Konishi, Showa Women's University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Michel Dufour's "On the difference between fallacy and sophism"

Erik C. W. Krabbe, University of Groningen

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on "Walton's Argumentation Schemes"

Michael D. Kurak

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Daniel Cohen and Katharina Stevens' "Virtuous Vices: On Objectivity and Bias in Argumentation"

Tone Kvernbekk, University of Oslo

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Comparing Two Models of Evidence

Tone Kvernbekk, University of Oslo

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

America vs. Apple: the Argumentative Function of Metonyms

Ilon Lauer
Thomas Lauer, Oakland University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Explicating and Negotiating Bias in Interdisciplinary Argumentation Using Abductive Tools: PAPER

Bethany K. Laursen, Michigan State University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Paul L. Simard Smith’s “Pluralism as a Bias Mitigation Strategy”

Marcin Lewinski, Universidade Nova de Lisboa

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Where is the reasonable? Objectivity and bias of practical argument

Marcin Lewinski, Universidade Nova de Lisboa

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on: “Ad Stuprum: The Fallacy of Appeal to Sex”

Maureen Linker

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on “On Appeals to (Visual) Models”: Appeals to Visual Models – An Epistemological Reconstruction of an Argument Type

Christoph Lumer, University of Siena

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Walton’s Argumentation Schemes

Christoph Lumer, University of Siena

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Santibanez’s “Strategically wrong: bias and argumentation”

Brian MacPherson Dr., University of Windsor

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Eliminating Gender-, Racial- and Age-Biases in Medical Diagnostic Reasoning (PAPER)

Brian MacPherson Dr., University of Windsor

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Visser on computer support for pragma-dialectic argumentation analysis

Ami Mamolo, University of Ontario Institute of Technology

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Exploring argumentation, objectivity, and bias: The case of mathematical infinity

Ami Mamolo, University of Ontario Institute of Technology

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Acts of Ostension

Hubert Marraud, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Douglas N. Walton and Alice Toniolo’s “Deliberation, Practical Reasoning and Problem-solving”

Hubert Marraud, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on A Perspective of Objectivity in the Human Rights Arguments

Danny Marrero, General Attorney's Office

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Comments on Derek Allen’s “Ethical argumentation, objectivity, and bias”

Neil Mehta, Yale-NUS College

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on 'Pursuing objectivity: How virtuous can you get?'

William R. Minto, N/A

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Arguments from Expert Opinion and Persistent Bias

Moti Mizrahi, Florida Institute of Technology - Melbourne

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Harry Weger, Edward Hinck and John Seiter’s Background nonverbal disagreement during televised political debates: A strategic maneuvering approach

Dima Mohammed, Universidade Nova de Lisboa

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

What's in a good argument about evaluative claims? Argumentation in accountability practices

Dima Mohammed, Universidade Nova de Lisboa

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on “The Method of Relevant Variables, Objectivity, and Bias”

Andrei Moldovan

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Strategies of objectification in opinion articles: the case of evidentials

Elena Musi, Università della Svizzera italiana

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Argumentation Mining in Parliamentary Discourse

Nona Naderi, University of Toronto

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Reply to Commentary on “Argumentation Mining in Parliamentary Discourse”

Nona Naderi, University of Toronto

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Rania El Nakkouzi: “Legitimizing Past Actions Through Appeals to Moral Values”

Jeff Noonan, University of Windsor

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Dima Mohammed’s “How to Argue (Well) About Evaluative Standpoints? Argumentation in Accountability Practice”

Susana Nuccetelli, St. Cloud University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Khameiel Al Tamimi's "Evaluating Narrative Arguments"

Paula Olmos, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Meta-argumentation in deliberative discourse: Rhetoric 1360b05-1365b21

Paula Olmos, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on “Eliminating Gender-, Racial- and Age-Biases in Medical Diagnostic Reasoning”

Steve Oswald, University of Fribourg

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Conspiracy and bias: argumentative features and persuasiveness of conspiracy theories

Steve Oswald, University of Fribourg

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Don’t worry, be gappy! On the unproblematic gappiness of alleged fallacies

Fabio Paglieri, Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione, CNR Roma

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on E. Popa’s “Normative Argumentation Theory Without Fundamental Principles”

S. W. Patterson, Marygrove College

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on T. Herman’s “Revising Toulmin’s Model: Argumentative Cell and the Bias of Objectivity”

S. W. Patterson, Marygrove College

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

The Emotional Life of Reason: Exploring Conceptions of Objectivity

Robert C. Pinto, University of Windsor, Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric
Laura E. Pinto, University of Ontario Institute of Technology

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Normative Argumentation Theory Without Fundamental Principles

Eugen Octav Popa, University of Amsterdam

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on "Why Not Teach Critical Thinking" by B. Hamby

Kevin Possin, Winona State University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on “A Three-Dimensional Analysis of Definition with Bearing on Key Concepts” by Robert Ennis

Kevin Possin, Winona State University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Argument Objectivity and Ontological/Logical Pluralism: Must Arguments be Domain Sensitive?

Philip Rose, University of Windsor

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Reply to “Macpherson’ Commentary on Santibanez’s “Strategically wrong: bias and argumentation”

Cristian Santibanez Yanez, Universidad Diego Portales

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

“Strategically wrong”: bias and argumentation

Cristian Santibanez Yanez, Universidad Diego Portales

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Reply to commentary on Uses of arguments from definition in children's argumentation

Rebecca G. Schär, Università della Svizzera Italiana

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Uses of arguments from definition in children’s argumentation

Rebecca G. Schär, Università della Svizzera Italiana

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Agnotology and Argumentation: A Rhetorical Taxonomy of Not-Knowing

Blake D. Scott, University of Windsor, Graduate Student, Department of Philosophy

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary On 'Acts of Ostension'

Paul L. Simard Smith, University of Connecticut - Storrs

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Pluralism as a Bias Mitigation Strategy

Paul L. Simard Smith, University of Connecticut - Storrs

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on G. Thomas Goodnight’s “Blind Spots, Moral Hazards & Wounded Narratives”

Christopher W. Tindale, unibersoty of windsor
Christopher W. Tindale, University of Windsor, Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

The Use of Arguments A Fortiori in Decision Making

Sandra Clemencia Valencia Martinez, University of Santiago de Compostela

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Ralph H. Johnson’s “On Distinguishing Between an Objection and a Criticism”

Jan Albert van Laar, University of Groningen

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Reply to David Godden’s commentary on “Splitting a difference of opinion”

Jan Albert van Laar, University of Groningen
Erik C W Krabbe, University of Groningen

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Splitting a difference of opinion

Jan Albert van Laar, University of Groningen
Erik C W Krabbe, University of Groningen

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Towards Computer Support for Pragma-Dialectical Argumentation Analysis

Jacky Visser, University of Dundee

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Constructing a Periodic Table of Arguments

Jean H.M. Wagemans, University of Amsterdam

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Reply to commentary on Constructing a Periodic Table of Arguments

Jean H.M. Wagemans, University of Amsterdam

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Deliberation, Practical Reasoning and Problem-solving

Douglas Walton, University of Windsor
Alice Toniolo, University of Aberdeen, UK, Department of Computing Science

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Background Nonverbal Disagreement during Televised Political Debates: A Strategic Maneuvering Approach

Harry Weger Jr., University of Central Florida
Edward Hinck, University of Central Michigan
John Seiter, Utah State University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Biases, Bumps, Nudges, Query lists, and Zero Tolerance Policies

Sheldon Wein, Saint Mary's University - Canada

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on DAMMIT-- Dominant Adversarial Model: Minded Instead of Terminated (A Commentary on “DAMmed If You Do, DAMmed If You Don’t” by Sharon Bailin and Mark Battersby)

Sheldon Wein, Saint Mary's University - Canada

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on “The strategic formulation of abductive arguments in everyday reasoning”

John R. Welch, Saint Louis University - Madrid Campus

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Conclusions as Hedged Hypotheses

John R. Welch, Saint Louis University - Madrid Campus

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Scott Aikin, “A Modest Defense of Fallacy Theory”

Harald R. Wohlrapp, Universität Hamburg

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary to David Hitchcock's "Transsubjectivity"

Harald R. Wohlrapp, Universität Hamburg

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Particular Reasoning versus universal human rights: A case of China

Jingjing Wu, Tilburg University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Arguing Conductively or Arguing Strategically?

Yun Xie, Institute of Logic and Cognition, Sun Yat-sen University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on Constructing a Periodic Table of Arguments

Yun Xie

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Approaching Logos among Reason, Rationality, and Reasonableness

Xuan Yang, Institute of Logic and Cognition
Minghui Xiong, Institute of Logic and Cognition

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

A Ludological Perspective on Argument

Michael A. Yong-Set, University of Windsor

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Objectivity in newsmaking: an argumentative perspective

Marta Zampa, Zurich University of Applied Sciences Winterthur

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on "What should a normative theory of argument look like?"

David Zarefsky, Northwestern University (Emeritus)

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Commentary on John R. Welch’s “Conclusions as hedged hypotheses”

Frank Zenker, Lund University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

The polysemy of ‘fallacy’—or ‘bias’, for that matter

Frank Zenker, Lund University

University of Windsor

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM