Author ORCID Identifier
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8014-5098
Location
Room 1
Document Type
Paper
Keywords
fallacies, institutional fallacy, institutionalized fallacy, optimal critical testing, pragma-dialectics, presidential debate
Start Date
3-6-2020 2:00 PM
End Date
3-6-2020 3:00 PM
Abstract
To improve argumentative discourse, it is necessary to make fallacy judgments which take into consideration the social practice in which argumentation occurs. In this paper, I propose four meta-categories for fallacies to study the connection of fallacies to their institutionalized discourse. Using the first 2016 U.S. Presidential Debate as a case study, I show how this framework can be used to propose improvements to argumentative contexts.
Reader's Reactions
Jean H.M. Wagemans, Institutionalized argumentative reasonableness - Commentary on Reijven (June 2020)
Included in
Institutional and Institutionalized Fallacies: Diversifying Pragma-Dialectical Fallacy Judgments
Room 1
To improve argumentative discourse, it is necessary to make fallacy judgments which take into consideration the social practice in which argumentation occurs. In this paper, I propose four meta-categories for fallacies to study the connection of fallacies to their institutionalized discourse. Using the first 2016 U.S. Presidential Debate as a case study, I show how this framework can be used to propose improvements to argumentative contexts.
