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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Successful arguers must construct their arguments in ways... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Successful arguers must construct their arguments in ways that recognize the beliefs, attitudes, and values of their intended audience

    Philosophy of LanguageSkepticism
    ?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.A convincing argument for the same conclusion must address different issues when directed at audiences from different national and cultural backgrounds (Chinese, Norwegian, Kenyan, Israeli, Swiss, Palestinian, etc.)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rhetoric has emphasized since its beginnings that effective argumentation requires adapting to the audience
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Plato's Socrates in the Gorgias distinguishes genuine dialectic from flattery-based rhetoric, arguing that truth-tracking argument is corrupted by audience accommodation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An argument tailored to audience prejudices may be persuasive precisely because it exploits biases rather than because it is sound.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The normative standard for successful argumentation should be epistemic validity, not persuasive efficacy, making audience-adaptation a pragmatic tool, not a constitutive condition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's universalizability principle implies that a genuinely rational argument must be compelling to any rational agent regardless of contingent cultural beliefs or values.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If successful argumentation essentially requires audience-specific tailoring, then no argument can be assessed as objectively valid across contexts, collapsing into relativism.
      ?

      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

    SkepticismPhilosophy of Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    A convincing argument for the same conclusion must address different issues when...An argument tailored to audience prejudices may be persuasive precisely because ...If successful argumentation essentially requires audience-specific tailoring, th...Kant's universalizability principle implies that a genuinely rational argument m...
    +3 moreShow less
    Plato's Socrates in the Gorgias distinguishes genuine dialectic from flattery-ba...Rhetoric has emphasized since its beginnings that effective argumentation requir...The normative standard for successful argumentation should be epistemic validity...

    Similar

    For an argument to be successful with a specific audience, its premise...81%An arguer's purpose may be to produce a withholding of assent, a parti...80%Aristotle argues in the Rhetoric that successful arguments must have p...79%The central purpose of arguments is to provide a bridge from known tru...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logic-informal
    View source passageHide passage
    A convincing argument for the conclusion that the United Nations cannot be trusted must address different issues when it is directed at a Chinese, Norwegian, Kenyan, Israeli, Swiss, Palestinian, etc. audience. As rhetoric has emphasized since its beginnings, this means that successful arguers must construct their arguments in ways that recognize the beliefs, attitudes and values of their intended audience (and in this sense ‘speak’ to them). Tindale (1999, 2004, 2010) has imported this notion in
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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