PhilArchive
open access
Turning the Tables: Up- and Downgrading of Evaluative Terms in Public Controversies.
We discuss the strategy of using dyslogistic terms in a novel, laudatory manner, or eulogistic terms pejoratively. By such up- and downgrading of evaluative terms the proponent of a standpoint may attempt to turn the tables in a public controversy: what formerly looked like a bad argument comes to be regarded as a strong one, or vice versa. Is this a licit strategy? We take our lead from Macagno and Walton who examined evaluative words from an argumentative stance.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Hermenéutica y Fenomenología: el desocultamiento de lo ontológico#17774
- The Distinctiveness of Appellate Adjudication#733004
- Chomskyan Arguments Against Truth-Conditional Semantics Based on Variability and Co-predication#775524
- Argument Identification#96286
- Meaning without Analyticity (Reprinted in Callaway, 2008 Meaning without Analyticity)#707722
Record · ID 204309
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive