Argumentation

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 341–348 | Cite as

Nothing Persuades Like Success: Reflections on Partially and Over-Successful Persuasion. A Reply to Debowska-Kozlowska

Comment to: Processing Topics from the Beneficial Cognitive Model in Partially and Over-Successful Persuasion Dialogues
Article
First Online:
  • 211 Downloads

Abstract

In this brief commentary of Kamila Debowska-Kozlowska’s insightful analysis of persuasive outcomes (Processing topics from the Beneficial Cognitive Model in partially and over-successful persuasion dialogues. Argumentation, 2014), I articulate some suggestions for future development of her ideas. My main claim is that, while instances of partially and over-successful persuasion are indeed worthy of further theoretical inquiry, the topical analysis proposed by Debowska-Kozlowska may benefit from integration with other approaches.

Keywords

Persuasion Success Goals Topics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Budzynska, Katarzyna and Kamila Debowska. 2010. Dialogues with conflict resolution: Goals and effects. In Aspects of semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (SemDial 2010), eds. P. Łupkowski, M. Purver, 59–66.Google Scholar
  2. Budzynska, Katarzyna, and Magdalena Kacprzak. 2008. A logic for reasoning about persuasion. Fundamenta Informaticae 85: 51–65.Google Scholar
  3. Budzynska, Katarzyna, and Magdalena Kacprzak. 2011. Model checking of persuasion in multiagent systems. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 23(36): 99–122.Google Scholar
  4. Debowska-Kozlowska, Kamila. 2014. Processing topics from the Beneficial Cognitive Model in partially and over-successful persuasion dialogues. Argumentation. doi: 10.1007/s10503-014-9323-5.
  5. Gilbert, Michael. 1997. Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Paglieri, Fabio, and Cristiano Castelfranchi. 2007. Belief and acceptance in argumentation: towards an epistemological taxonomy of the uses of argument. In Proceedings of ISSA 2006, ed. J.A. Blair, F.H. van Eemeren, and C.A. Willard, 1011–1018. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  7. Paglieri, Fabio, and Cristiano Castelfranchi. 2010. Why arguing? Towards a costs-benefits analysis of argumentation. Argument and Computation 1: 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2000. Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. Argumentation 14(3): 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2002. Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, 13–27. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  11. Walton, Douglas. 1998. The new dialectic: conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  12. Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Goal-Oriented Agents Lab (GOAL), Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della CognizioneConsiglio Nazionale delle RicercheRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations