Abstract
According to pragma-dialectical methodology, a party in an argumentative discussion can be assumed to manoeuvre strategically between dialectical and rhetorical objectives. One confrontational form of strategic manoeuvring occurs when a critic charges an arguer with advancing a standpoint that has socially harmful consequences. In special situations this form of manoeuvring can be dialectically sound, for example when the standpoint is advanced in a way that damages the dialectical process. The boundary between fallacious and dialectically sound applications of this form of manoeuvring is examined by looking for the manoeuvring’s soundness conditions.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Blokker, J.: 2002, January 30, ‹Denieuwe duce’ Volkskrant, p. 4
van Eemeren F. H., R. Grootendorst 1992 Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J
van Eemeren F. H., R. Grootendorst 2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach, Cambridge University, Cambridge
van Eemeren F. H., P. Houtlosser 1999 Delivering the Goods in Critical Discussion, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 168–167
van Eemeren F. H., P. Houtlosser 2002, Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse: A Delicate Balance, in F. H. van Eemeren, P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp. 131–159
van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 2003, ‹More about Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering: The Case of Tu Quoque’, in H. V. Hansen, Ch. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson and R. C. Pinto (eds.), Argumentation and its Applications. Proceedings of the Conference Organised by the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation in May 2001, CD-ROM, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Windsor, CA
van Eemeren F. H., P. Houtlosser, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans 2005 Argumentatieve indicatoren in het Nederlands: Een pragma-dialectische studie. Rozenberg, Amsterdam
Garssen, B.: 2001, ‹Argument Schemes’, in F. H. van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory, pp. 81–99
Garssen, B.: 2006, ‹De argumentatieschemaregel: Beweringen met nare consequenties: twee varianten van het argumentum ad consequentiam’, in B. Garssen and F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), De redelijkheid zelve: Tien pragma-dialectische opstellen voor Frans van Eemeren, pp. 107–117
Houtlosser, P.: 2001, ‹Points of View’, in F. H. van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory, pp. 27–50
Krabbe, E. C. W.: 2002, ‹Profiles of Dialogue as a Dialectical Tool’, In: F. H. van Eemeren (ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics, pp. 153–167. Sic Sat/Newport Press, Amsterdam; Vale Press, Virginia
Krabbe E. C. W. 2003 'Metadialogues', in F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 641–644
Krabbe, E. C. W.: 2001, ‹Strategies in Dialectic and Rhetoric’, in H. V. Hansen, Ch. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson and R. C. Pinto (eds.), Argumentation and its Applications (CD-ROM), Proceedings from the Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, May 17–19, 2001, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario
van Laar, J. A.: 2003, The Dialectic of Ambiguity: A Contribution to the Study of Argumentation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, (http://irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/249337959)
van Laar J. A.: 2007, ‹One-sided Arguments’, Synthese 154, 307–327
van Laar, J. A. and D. Mohammed: 2007, ‹You’re being inconsistent!: Understanding confrontational manoeuvring from the perspective of a dialectical profile.’ Manuscript
Naess A.: 1966, Communication and argument: Elements of applied semantics, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo
Perelman Ch., L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame
Poorthuis, F. and H. Wansink: 2002, February 9, ‹De islam is een achterlijke cultuur’ Volkskrant, Reflex, p. 13
Spong G., O. Hammerstein: 2003, Vervolg ze tot in de hel: De haat-zaai aangifte van Fortuyn, Uitgeverij Balans, Amsterdam
Walton D.: 1999, Profiles of Dialogue for Evaluating Arguments from Ignorance, Argumentation 13, 53–71
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
van Laar, J.A. Don’t say that!. Argumentation 20, 495–510 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9036-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9036-0