argumentation

(redirected from argumentations)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus.

argumentation

Logic the process of reasoning methodically
Collins Discovery Encyclopedia, 1st edition © HarperCollins Publishers 2005
References in periodicals archive ?
This research aimed to explore how female students of a secondary school of Pakistan can be engaged in Argumentation about a Socio-Scientific Issue.
Key Words: conceptual understanding, argumentation skills
There may be occasions when someone is temporarily "out of his mind" or definitively "loses his mind." Moreover, every human being goes through a stage early in life when his rational faculties and his knowledge of the world are still insufficient to allow him to participate in argumentations. However, it is customary not to hold young children responsible for their actions, and customary to hold grown-ups responsible for their actions, unless the particular case reveals sufficient reason to think otherwise.
In justificatory argumentation two or more persons seek to justify or to excuse a belief or action, to determine whether it is a belief one ought to accept (or to reject) or an action one ought to undertake (or to forgo), or whether the circumstances of the case present sufficient reasons (e.g., necessity, duress, compulsion, coercion, manipulation) for excusing a person for believing or doing something that is contrary to right.
Teaching an introductory course in argumentation can be a highly exciting and rewarding experience.
Scott's theory of rhetoric as epistemic and Friedrich Nietzsche's writings provide ample foundation for an existential model of teaching argumentation. Scott's theory has been a dominant theme in rhetorical studies for many years (Zarefsky 177).
An adequate evaluation of argumentation starts from an analytic overview of the argumentative discourse.
Here, we report about some exploratory empirical investigations on the performances of Dutch secondary education students in identifying unexpressed premises and argumentation schemes.
The objective of argumentation ethics is to determine which propositions--in particular, which normative propositions--are undeniable in any argumentation.
The following elements of argumentation ethics are directly relevant to Young's paper: (1) a person's self-control is a necessary condition of his ability to engage others in argumentation; (2) exercising self-control with proper respect for others is a person's undeniable (i.e., argumentatively undeniable) right of self-ownership.
If, however, examples are used as part of the argumentation, their advantages are not as obvious as when they have a non-argumentative function.
In this paper I will concentrate on how argumentation from example may be used to manoeuvre strategically in plenary legislative debates in the European parliament.