In the absence of disambiguating contextual information, reconstructing the pragmatic optimum of the premise left implicit in a 'single' argumentation can sometimes cause serious problems to the analyst.
In order to make their standpoints acceptable, arguers rely on more or less conventionalized argumentation schemes.
This paper deals with the three days teaching practicum during which Tolmin Model of argumentation (2003) was used with the aim to enhance argumentation skills of students on a socio scientific issue "Deforestation".
The important parts of Tolmin model of argumentation with description are presented in Table 1.
The move from the fact of self-control to the right of self-ownership requires argumentation but is not problematic for humans.
In any argumentation, it is undeniable that "I" and "you" are persons, that "we" (the arguers) ought to respect one another as free and equal persons relative to one another, and that "we" ought to settle "our" differences by argumentation or argumentatively defensible methods.
In the extended version of the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, van Eemeren and Houtlosser (1999) introduced the theoretical concept of strategic manoeuvring.
In order to be able to analyse and evaluate the argumentation that is brought forward in plenary debates in the European Parliament on proposals for legislation, it is necessary to discuss how the legislative process in the European Parliament is organised and which propositions are discussed in the legislative debates that take place in the different stages of the legislative process.
The ethics of argumentation restricts the range of one rational being's lawful actions with respect to other rational beings, who like him accept that actions should be justifiable; it does not impose restrictions on what a rational being may do to a rock that threatens to crush his home, a bear that threatens to tear him apart, a criminal who tries to rob him.
My argument here refers to the theory of crime and punishment implied in the ethics of argumentation, a theory that is familiar to libertarians.
While this may seem reasonable from within the traditional argumentation paradigm, it portrays a limitation in our argumentation texts.
Austin Freeley defined argumentation as "reason giving in communicative situations by people whose purpose is the justification of acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values" (1).