Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Non-traditional modes of arguing are valuable in real-lif... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Non-traditional modes of arguing are valuable in real-life argumentation

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The goal of argumentation in real-life situations is to resolve disagreement
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-traditional modes of arguing can provide effective ways of resolving the disagreement that gives rise to argument
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The value of an argumentative mode depends on whether it tracks truth, not merely whether it resolves disagreement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-traditional modes such as narrative, metaphor, or emotional appeal can resolve disagreement by bypassing rational evaluation rather than satisfying it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A method that resolves disagreement by circumventing rational scrutiny produces epistemic harm even when it produces social consensus.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Habermas's discourse ethics holds that legitimate argumentation requires idealised conditions of sincerity, symmetry, and logical force alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Admitting non-traditional modes as genuinely argumentative blurs the normative boundary between persuasion and manipulation, undermining critical standards.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without that boundary, informal logic loses its evaluative purchase and cannot distinguish good from bad real-life argumentation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    A method that resolves disagreement by circumventing rational scrutiny produces ...Admitting non-traditional modes as genuinely argumentative blurs the normative b...Habermas's discourse ethics holds that legitimate argumentation requires idealis...Non-traditional modes of arguing can provide effective ways of resolving the dis...
    +4 moreShow less
    Non-traditional modes such as narrative, metaphor, or emotional appeal can resol...The goal of argumentation in real-life situations is to resolve disagreementThe value of an argumentative mode depends on whether it tracks truth, not merel...Without that boundary, informal logic loses its evaluative purchase and cannot d...

    Similar

    Non-traditional modes of arguing can provide effective ways of resolvi...92%Non-traditional modes of arguing (emotional expressions, physical demo...89%The goal of argumentation in real-life situations is to resolve disagr...79%A fully comprehensive account of argument must include a multimodal ac...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logic-informal
    View source passageHide passage
    According to Gilbert’s account, an argument may consist of sentences and/or expressions of emotion, physical demonstrations and difficult to define intuitions. This allows a forlorn look or tears to count as premises in an argument insofar as they provide evidence that promotes coalescence (and inference in this broad sense). As Gilbert argues, his non-traditional modes of arguing may, in real life situations, provide effective ways of resolving the disagreement that gives rise to argument.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit