Argumentation Aug 2010 Open Access

Argumentative Bluff in Eristic Discussion: An Analysis and Evaluation

Jan Albert van Laar University of Groningen

Abstract

How does the analysis and evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argumentation has been put forward? This paper focuses on argumentative bluff in eristic discussion. Argumentation cannot be presented without conveying the pretence that it is dialectically reasonable, as well as, at least to some degree, rhetorically effective. Within eristic discussion it can be profitable to engage in bluff with respect to such claims. However, it will be argued that such bluffing is dialectically inadmissible, even within an eristic discussion.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2010-08-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-010-9184-5
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
argument assessment
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (0)

No references match articles in this index.

Also cites 6 works outside this index ↓
  1. ECW Krabbe (2009)
    Rhetoric and argumentation in the beginning of the XXIst century
     ↗
  2. J Mackenzie (1990)
    Mackenzie, J. 1990. Four dialogue systems. Studia Logica 49: 567–583.
    Studia Logica  ↗
  3. D Tannen (2002)
    Tannen, D. 2002. Agonism in academic discourse. Journal of pragmatics 34: 1651–1669.
    Journal of pragmatics  ↗
  4. FH Eemeren van (2002)
    Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis
     ↗
  5. FH Eemeren van (2009)
    Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-diale…
     ↗
  6. DN Walton (1998)
    The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument
     ↗
CrossRef global citation count: 6 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related Articles

  1. Argumentation Mar 2026
    Experimental Insights into the Influence of Logic and Pragmatics on Conditional Argument Evaluation ↗
    Ermioni Seremeta; Monique Flecken; Menno Reijven; Jean Wagemans
    discourse analysis argument assessment
  2. Written Communication Feb 2026
    Stance in REF Submissions: Authorial Positioning in Impact Narratives ↗
    Ken Hyland; Feng (Kevin) Jiang
    rhetorical criticism genre theory argument assessment
  3. Assessing Writing Jan 2026
    The effects of online resource use on L2 learners’ computer-mediated writing processes and written products ↗
    Honglan Wang; Jookyoung Jung
    revision argument assessment digital rhetoric multilingual writers grammar and mechanics affect and writing
  4. Assessing Writing Jan 2026
    How reliable and valid is peer evaluation in adolescents’ L2 argumentative writing? ↗
    Albert W. Li; Steve Graham
    writing pedagogy teacher development argument assessment multilingual writers grammar and mechanics literacy studies
  5. Argumentation Oct 2025
    Finding the Missing Link: An Algorithmic Approach to Reconstructing Enthymemes ↗
    Ameer Saadat-Yazdi; Jean H. M. Wagemans
    discourse analysis argument assessment