• Corpus ID: 202715420

Straw man as misuse of rephrase

  title={Straw man as misuse of rephrase},
  author={Jacky Visser and Marcin Koszowy and Barbara Konat and Katarzyna Budzynska},

Figures from this paper

Informal Logic A Pragmatic Account of Rephrase in Argumentation Linguistic and Cognitive Evidence

: In the spirit of the pragmatic account of quotation and reporting offered by Macagno and Walton (2017), we outline a systematic pragmatic account of rephrasing. For this purpose, we combine two

Corpus Linguistics Methods in the Study of (Meta)Argumentation

As more and more sophisticated software is created to allow the mining of arguments from natural language texts, this paper sets out to examine the suitability of the well-established and readily

Language and argument: a review of the field

Abstract This paper has a dual purpose: it both seeks to introduce the other works in this issue by illustrating how they are related to the field of argumentation as a whole, and to make clear the



Towards an argument interchange format

A draft specification for an argument interchange format (AIF) intended for representation and exchange of data between various argumentation tools and agent-based applications is described and three concrete realizations or ‘reifications’ of the abstract model are illustrated.

A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales

CONSIDER Table 1. It represents in its formal characteristics a situation which arises in the clinical-social-personality areas of psychology, where it frequently occurs that the only useful level of

Democratic candidates debate in Des Moines

  • Iowa, November
  • 2015

The Straw Man Fallacy

Pragmatics, cognitive heuristics and the straw man fallacy: Steve Oswald, Marcin Lewiñski

In the literature on argumentation, the straw man fallacy denotes the misrepresentation of someone’s position in order to easily refute that position (see Aikin & Casey 2011, Lewiński 2011, Bizer,

Towards a Critique-Friendly Approach to the Straw Man Fallacy Evaluation

In this article I address the following question: When are reformulations in argumentative criticisms reasonable and when do they become fallacious straw men? Following ideas developed in the

Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation

In Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse, Frans H. van Eemeren brings together the dialectical and the rhetorical dimensions of argumentation by introducing the concept of strategic

OVA+: an Argument Analysis Interface

OVA+, an on-line interface for the analysis of arguments, is introduced as the result of an attempt to provide a tool relying on the Argument Interchange Format theory and Inference Anchoring Theory schemes.

Towards a Theory of Close Analysis for Dispute Mediation Discourse

Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution process that is becoming more and more popular particularly in English-speaking countries. In contrast to traditional litigation it has not benefited