The attraction of the ideal has no traction on the real: on adversariality and roles in argument¹

References

• Aberdein, Andrew. 2010. “Virtue in Argument.” Argumentation 24 (2): 165–179. doi: 10.1007/s10503-009-9160-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aikin, Scott. 2008. “Holding One’s Own.” Argumentation 22 (4): 571–584. doi: 10.1007/s10503-007-9066-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aikin, Scott. 2011. “A Defense of War and Sports Metaphors in Argument.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 44 (3): 250–272. Project Muse. https://muse.jhu.edu/journal/151.
   Google Scholar
• Aikin, Scott and Mark Anderson. 2006. “Argumentative Norms in Republic I.” Philosophy in the Contemporary World 13 (2): 18–23. doi: 10.5840/pcw200613213.
   Google Scholar
• Annas, Julia. 2011. Intelligent Virtue. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Axtel, Guy and J. Adam Carter. 2008. “Just the Right Thickness: A Defense of Second-Wave Virtue Epistemology.” Philosophical Papers 37 (3): 413–434. doi: 10.1080/05568640809485229.
   Google Scholar
• Bailin, Sharon, and Mark Battersby. 2017. “DAMed If You Do; DAMed If You Don’t: Cohen’s ‘Missed Opportunities.’” In Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, edited by Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista, OSSA Conference Archive. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/.
   Google Scholar
• Battaly, Heather. 2008. “Virtue Epistemology.” Philosophy Compass: Epistemology 3 (4): 639–663. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008.00146.x.
   Google Scholar
• Biddle, Bruce. 1979. Role Theory: Expectations, Identities and Behaviors. Burlington: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Cassady, Michael. 2006. “Character and Context: What Virtue Theory Can Teach Us About a Prosecutor’s Ethical Duty to ‘Seek Justice.’” Notre Dame Law Review 82 (2): 635–698.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Code, Lorraine. 1984. “Towards a Responsibilist Epistemology.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 45 (1): 29–50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2107325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Daniel H. 1995. “Argument is War … and War is Hell.” Informal Logic 17 (2): 177–188. doi: 10.22329/il.v17i2.2406.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Daniel H. 2003. “Just and Unjust Arguments.” IL@25: Proceedings of the 2003 meetings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Windsor, Ontario (CD-ROM).
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Daniel H. 2013a. “Virtue, in Context.” Informal Logic, 33 (4): 471–485. doi: 10.22329/il.v33i4.4077.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen Daniel H. 2013b. “Skepticism and Argumentative Virtues: Sextus, Nagarjuna, and Zhuangzi.” Cogency 5 (1): 9–31. http://cogency.udp.cl/index.php/cogency/article/view/148.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Daniel H. 2014. “Commentary on von Radziewsky.” In Virtues of Argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, edited by Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewinsky, OSSA Conference Archiv. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Daniel H. 2015. “Missed Opportunities in Argument Evaluation.” In Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory, edited by. Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 121–130. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Daniel H. 2017. “Commentary on Michael Yong-Set’s ‘Ludological approach to argumentation.’” In Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, edited by Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista, OSSA Conference Archive. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Daniel H., and Katharina Stevens. 2016. “Virtuous Vices: On Objectivity and Bias in Argumentation.” Paper presented at the Conference of the Ontario Conference for the Study of Argumentation, May 18–21, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Eemeren, Frans. H. van, and Robert Grootendorst. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Floris Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Eemeren, Frans.H. van, and Robert Grootendorst, 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eemeren, Frans H. van, Robert Grootendorst, and Francisca Snoek-Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, Lon L. 1978. “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication.” Harvard Law Review 92 (2): 353–409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gascon, José Ángel. 2016a. “Virtue and Arguers.” Topoi, 35 (2): 441–450. doi: 10.1007/s11245-015-9321-8.
   Google Scholar
• Gascon, José Ángel. 2016b. “Willingness to Trust as a Virtue in Argumentative Discussions.” In Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the first European Conference on Argumentation, edited by D. Mohammed and M, Lewinski, 91–107. London: College Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, Michael. 1994. “Feminism, Argumentation, and Coalescence.” Informal Logic 16 (2): 95–113. doi: 10.22329/il.v16i2.2444.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, Michael. 1997. Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, Michael. 2014. Arguing with People. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, Michael. 2016. “Ethos, Familiars and Micro-Cultures.” In The Psychology of Argument: Cognitive Approaches to Argumentation and Persuasion, edited by Fabio Paglieri, Laura Bonelli, and Silvia Felletti, 275–285. London: College Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Godden, David. 2016. “On the Priority of Agent-Based Argumentative Norms.” Topoi, 35 (2): 345–357. doi: 10.1007/s11245-014-9296-x.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, Jean. 2007. “Argument has no Function.” Informal Logic 27 (1): 69–90. doi: 10.22329/il.v27i1.465.
   Google Scholar
• Govier, Trudy. 1993. “When Logic Meets Politics: Testimony, Distrust and Rhetorical Disadvantage.” Informal Logic 15 (2): 93–104. doi: 10.22329/il.v15i2.2476.
   Google Scholar
• Govier, Trudy. 1999. The Philosophy of Argument. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greco, John. 1999. “Agent Reliabilism.” Philosophical Perspectives: Epistemology 13:273–296.
   Google Scholar
• Hundleby, Catherine. 2013. “Aggression, Politeness, and Abstract Adversaries.” Informal Logic 33 (2): 238–262. doi: 10.22329/il.v33i2.3895.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewinski, Marcin. 2017. “Practical Argumentation as Reasoned Advocacy.” Informal Logic 37 (2): 85–113. doi: 10.22329/il.v33i2.3895.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. 2011. “Why do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2): 57–111. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000968.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. 2017. The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moulton, Janice. 1989. “A Paradigm in Philosophy: The Adversarial Method.” In: Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives in Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, edited by Sandra Harding and Merrill Hintikka, 149–164. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Oswald, Steve and Didier Maillat (eds.). 2018. Argument and Inference. Volume II Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation. London: College Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Paglieri, Fabio. 2015. “Bogency and Goodacies: On Argument Quality in Virtue Argumentation Theory.” Informal Logic 35 (1): 65–87. doi: 10.22329/il.v35i1.4209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rooney, Phyllis. 2003. “Feminism and Argumentation: A Response to Govier.” IL@25: Proceedings of the 2003 Meetings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Windsor, Ontario (CD-ROM).
   Google Scholar
• Rooney, Phyllis. 2010. “Philosophy, Adversarial Argumentation, and Embattled Reason.” Informal Logic 30 (3): 203–234. doi: 10.22329/il.v30i3.3032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searle, John. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, Cass. 2000. “Deliberative Troubles Why Groups go to Extremes.” Yale Law Journal 110 (1): 71–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, Katharina. 2016. “The Virtuous Arguer: One Person, Four Roles.” Topoi 35 (2): 375–383. doi: 10.1007/s11245-015-9309-4.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, Jonathan. H. 2002. Face to Face—Toward a Sociological Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, Ralph. H. 2001. “Role Theory.” In Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by Jonathan H. Turner, 233–254. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, Douglas N. 1998. The New Dialectic. Toronto: Toronto University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, Douglas N. 1999. “Ethotic Arguments and Fallacies: The Credibility Function in Multi-Agent Dialogue Systems.” Pragmatics and Cognition 7 (1): 177–203. doi: 10.1075/pc.7.1.08wal.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, Douglas N., and Erik C. W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue. Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wein, Sheldon. 2017. “DAMMIT: Dominant Adversarial Model, Minded Instead Of Terminated (Commentary on Bailin and Battersby).” In Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, edited by Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista, OSSA Conference Archive. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, Bernard. 2004. Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wohlrapp, Harald. 2014. The Concept of Argument. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Zagzebski, Linda. 1996. Virtues of the Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zarefsky, David. 2012. “A Challenge and an Opportunity for Argumentation Studies.” Argumentation and Advocacy 48 (3): 175–178. doi: 10.1080/00028533.2012.11821763.
   Google Scholar