Abstract
What counts as a good defence of the conduct of a political agent? I formulate an answer combining insightsfrom argumentation scholarship on the different types of standpoints and the schemes suitable to defend them withinsights from philosophical literature (fact vs. value, theoretical vs. practical reasoning … etc). The goal is to make aproposal that is best suitable for examining the type of evaluative claims that is typically discussed in accountabilitypractices.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-14 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference |
| Volume | 11 |
| Publication status | Published - 2016 |
| Event | Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) - Windsor, ON, Canada Duration: 18 May 2016 → 21 May 2016 Conference number: 11 |
Keywords
- accountability
- argument from sign
- conductive argument
- evaluative claim
- evaluative adjectives
- factvalue distinction
- symptomatic argument
- type of standpoint