Practical argumentation as reasoned advocacy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

18 Citations (Scopus)
66 Downloads (Pure)


The paper offers a theo retical investigation into the sources of normativity in practical argumen tation. The chief question is: Do we need objectively-minded, unbiased arguers or can we count on "good" argumentative processes in which individual biases cancel each other out? I address this question by ana lysing a detailed structure of practi cal argument and its varieties, and by discussing the tenets of a com parative approach to practical rea son. I argue that given the compara tive structure proposed, reasoned advocacy in argumentative activity upholds reasonableness whenever that activity is adequately designed. I propose some basic rules for such a design of practical argumentation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)85-113
Number of pages29
JournalInformal Logic
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2017


  • Advocacy
  • Argumentation
  • Comparativism
  • Deliberation
  • Polylogue
  • Practical argument


Dive into the research topics of 'Practical argumentation as reasoned advocacy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this