Nonfallacious Rhetorical Design in Argumentation

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter


In previous papers I have argued that the traditional concepts of rhetorical strategy and argumentative fallacy are incompatible as they stand (Jacobs, 2000, 2002, 2005). Certain assumptions about strategy and fallacy block efforts to genuinely integrate logical and dialectical theories of argumentation with rhetorical theories. The problem arises from the traditional understanding of what can and should properly enter into achieving the goal of voluntary, informed consent. Both logical and dialectical theories of argumentation tend to equate this goal with decision-making that is based on “the merits of the case” according to “the force of the better argument” – and based on these considerations alone. When determining whether or not this standard has been properly upheld, logical evaluations tend to test directly the content and structure of the arguments that are made; dialectical approaches tend to evaluate the conduct and procedures by which the arguers themselves make and test their arguments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationPondering on Problems of Argumentation
EditorsFrans H van Eemeren, Bart Garssen
Number of pages24
StatePublished - 2009

Publication series

NameArgumentation Library
ISSN (Print)1566-7650
ISSN (Electronic)2215-1907


  • Argumentation Theory
  • Argumentative Discourse
  • Good Argument
  • Open Letter
  • Propositional Content

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law
  • Philosophy
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Language and Linguistics


Dive into the research topics of 'Nonfallacious Rhetorical Design in Argumentation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this