Argumentation has been long an area of interest for the human society, as the need to be able to form a persuasive argument became more apparent. It is a topic that has been explored and studied since the era of the ancient Greece by philosophers to the extent that it was an accepted part of the western education. While argumentation is a form of discourse that is defined as the act of forming arguments and conclusions, it is a broad definition that includes various types of dialogues where arguments are used (Moens, 2013).
There are many tools for studying discourses, their structure and complexity, one being dialogue games. Dialogue games usually have two or more participants partake in the dialogue. However some games can be in a monological …show more content…
This definition is used to identify when it is appropriate to make a statement or contribution to the discourse by defining the conditions for the situation. In turn the logic in the discourse deals with defining the rules for attack and defence in relation to the goal (Prakken, 2005). The second aspect suggested by Walton was that the analysis of different types of dialogue games was the result of adding together the concept of context and the participants’ goals as basic principles for classification and characterisation of a game (McBurney & Parson, 2009, Macagno, …show more content…
Some of them are Hamblin (H) and MacKenzie’s DC game. They are similar in some ways, but they differ in how they tackle certain aspects of a dialogue game. Hamblin’s game is an informative seeking game which has the purpose of investigating fallacies, and also creates a model of some of the traditional fallacies. The game uses five possible moves (‘Statement x’, ‘no commitment’, ‘Question’, ‘why x‘ and ‘resolve x’) and also uses a commitment store, which is basically a public list of a participant 's commitments throughout the game. However, traditional fallacies are unlikely to be committed to in purely information sharing dialogues. Walton states that they are more likely to appear where the participants are trying to prove or convince the other party. Because of this, Walton argues that H should be viewed as a basic framework for fallacies, rather than an analysis of them. (Walton,
There are many tools for studying discourses, their structure and complexity, one being dialogue games. Dialogue games usually have two or more participants partake in the dialogue. However some games can be in a monological …show more content…
This definition is used to identify when it is appropriate to make a statement or contribution to the discourse by defining the conditions for the situation. In turn the logic in the discourse deals with defining the rules for attack and defence in relation to the goal (Prakken, 2005). The second aspect suggested by Walton was that the analysis of different types of dialogue games was the result of adding together the concept of context and the participants’ goals as basic principles for classification and characterisation of a game (McBurney & Parson, 2009, Macagno, …show more content…
Some of them are Hamblin (H) and MacKenzie’s DC game. They are similar in some ways, but they differ in how they tackle certain aspects of a dialogue game. Hamblin’s game is an informative seeking game which has the purpose of investigating fallacies, and also creates a model of some of the traditional fallacies. The game uses five possible moves (‘Statement x’, ‘no commitment’, ‘Question’, ‘why x‘ and ‘resolve x’) and also uses a commitment store, which is basically a public list of a participant 's commitments throughout the game. However, traditional fallacies are unlikely to be committed to in purely information sharing dialogues. Walton states that they are more likely to appear where the participants are trying to prove or convince the other party. Because of this, Walton argues that H should be viewed as a basic framework for fallacies, rather than an analysis of them. (Walton,