Pragmatic argumentation and the application of legal rules

In law, the soundness of pragmatic argumentation in which a decision is defended by pointing to the consequences of the application of a particular legal rule, is often disputed. Some legal authors think that it is more of a rhetorical trick than a se rious attempt to convince in a rational way. Others think that it can be an acceptable way to defend a decision, provided that judges make explicit which value judgments underlie their decisions. I will sketch a pragma-dialectical framework for pragmati c argumentation and describe the criteria for sound pragmatic argumentation in a legal context

The Soundness of Pragmatic Argumentation: Does the End Justify the Means?

This paper addresses a specific form of argumentation, pragmatic argumentation, in which a certain action, choice or decision is justified by referring to the favourable consequences of the action (and the unfavourable consequences of the alternative action). The paper starts with a survey of the ideas on legal argumentation developed in argumentation theory, analytical philosophy and legal theory. The various ideas are brought together in a pragma-dialectical perspective in order to give a systematic survey of the various conceptions of pragmatic argumentation and to decide which further lines of research must be developed

Discovering Argumentative Patterns in Energy Polylogues: A Macroscope for Argument Mining

A macroscope is proposed and tested here for the discovery of the unique argumentative footprint that characterizes how a collective (e.g., group, online community) manages differences and pursues disagreement through argument in a polylogue. The macroscope addresses broader analytic problems posed by various conceptualizations of large-scale argument, such as fields, spheres, communities, and institutions. The design incorporates a two-tier methodology for detecting argument patterns of the arguments performed in arguing by an interactive collective that produces views, or topographies, of the ways that issues are generated in the making and defending of standpoints. The design premises for the macroscope build on insights about argument patterns from pragma-dialectical theory by incorporating research and theory on disagreement management and the Argumentum Model of Topics. The design reconceptualizes prototypical and stereotypical argument patterns for characterizing large-scale argumentation. A prototype of the macroscope is tested on data drawn from six threads about oil-drilling and fracking from the subreddit Changemyview. The implementation suggests the efficacy of the macroscope’s design and potential for identifying what communities make controversial and how the disagreement space in a polylogue is managed through stereotypical argument patterns in terms of claims/premises, inferential relations, and presentational devices

The study of legal argumentation in argumentation theory and legal theory: approaches and developments

This contribution provides an overview of how argumentation theorists, philosophers, legal theorists and legal philosophers approach questions about the standards for the correctness of legal argumentation. Ideas about the analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation, developed by influential authors in the field, will be examined. This overview serves as a general introduction and background for the different contributions to this issue of Cogency in which the different questions mentioned above will be addressed by the various authors. The contribution starts with an overview of objectives and methodological choices in the study of legal argumentation. It proceeds with a discussion of three traditions in the study of legal argumentation: the logical, the rhetorical and the dialogical approach. The discussion is completed with an extended description of the pragma-dialectical approach to legal argumentation. In this approach rhetorical and dialectical aspects are integrated in a systematic theory for the analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation from the perspective of a rational critical discussion.Esta contribución provee de un marco general de cómo los teóricos de la argumentación, filósofos, teóricos legales y filósofos legales se acercan a preguntas sobre los estándares de corrección de la argumentación legal. Ideas sobre el análisis y evaluación de la argumentación, desarrolladas por influyentes autores en el campo, serán examinadas. Este marco general sirve como introducción general para las distintas contribuciones a este número de Cogency en el que los diferentes problemas mencionados serán comentados por los autores. La contribución comienza con un marco general de objetivos y selección metodológica en el estudio de la argumentación legal. Sigue con una discusión de tres tradiciones en el estudio de la argumentación legal: la lógica, la retórica y el acercamiento dialéctico. La discusión se completa con descripción extendida del ángulo pragma-dialéctico de la argumentación legal. En este acercamiento los aspectos retóricos y dialécticos son integrados en una teoría sistemática para el análisis y evaluación de la argumentación legal desde la perspectiva de la discusión crítica racional