ABSTRACT This article argues that the theoretical concept of meta-argumentative fallacy is useful. The authors argue for this along two lines. The first is that with the concept, the authors may clarify the concept of meta-argumentation. That is, by theorizing where meta-argument goes wrong, the authors may capture the norms of this level of argumentation. The second is that the concept of meta-argumentative fallacies provides an explanatory model for a variety of errors in argument otherwise difficult to theorize. The authors take three as exemplary: the straw man, both sides, and free speech fallacies.

Research Article| September 01 2011 A Defense of War and Sport Metaphors in Argument Scott Aikin Scott Aikin Philosophy Department, Vanderbilt University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2011) 44 (3): 250–272. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.3.0250 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Scott Aikin; A Defense of War and Sport Metaphors in Argument. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 September 2011; 44 (3): 250–272. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.3.0250 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2011 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2011The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.