Advertisement

On How to Get Beyond the Opening Stage

  • Erik C. W. Krabbe
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 14)
The opening stage - as many will know - is one of the four discussion stages contained in the familiar pragma-dialectical model of critical discussion (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1984, 1992, 2004), which constitutes a normative model for argumentative activities aimed at the resolution of a difference of opinion. It is one of the merits of this model that, in its description of the ideal argumentative process, it does not limit itself to argumentation in the proper, but narrow, sense of advancing arguments for a standpoint, but includes discussion stages where other necessary steps for the resolution of differences of opinion are located. Remember that there are just four stages, and that they are, in order, the following:
  1. 1.

    Confrontation Stage

     
  2. 2.

    Opening Stage

     
  3. 3.

    Argumentation stage

     
  4. 4.

    Concluding Stage.

     

Keywords

Basic Premise Opening Stage Infinite Regress Argumentative Discussion Completion Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Freeman, J. B. (2005). Acceptable Premises: An Epistemic Approach to an Informal Logic Problem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Krabbe, E. C. W. (2003). Metadialogues. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone Who has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation (pp. 83–90). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  4. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik C. W. Krabbe

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations