Abstract
Robert Kimball, in "What's Wrong with Argumentum Ad Baculum?" (Argumentation, 2006) argues that dialogue-based models of rational argumentation do not satisfactorily account for what is objectionable about more malicious uses of threats encountered in some ad baculum arguments. We review the dialogue-based approach to argumentum ad baculum, and show how it can offer more than Kimball thinks for analyzing such threat arguments and ad baculum fallacies.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 63-81 |
Number of pages | 19 |
Journal | Argumentation |
Volume | 21 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Mar 2007 |
Keywords
- Abductive reasoning
- Dialectical argumentation
- Fallacies
- Negotiation
- Threats
- Virtue ethics