Search results

  • Full text

  • Document type

    • Publication year

  • Organisation

Results: 518
Number of items: 518
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Dialectical profiles and indicators of argumentative moves. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, & D. M. Godden (Eds.), Dissensus and the search for common ground: OSSA 2007 Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA7/papersandcommentaries/37/
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2006). Apples and oranges, peer pressure, and other such troublemakers: ordinary arguers' opinions about violations of the pragma-dialectical argument scheme rule. In P. Riley, & C. Willis-Chun (Eds.), Engaging argument: selected papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation: sponsored by the National Communication Association, the American Forensics Association, and the University of Utah (pp. 445-452). National Communication Association.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2006). Strategisch manoeuvreren, het model van een kritische discussie en conventionele actietypen. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 28(1), 1-14.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2006). Complementary dialectical and rhetorical considerations. An analysis of a burden of proof manipulation. In F. H. Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on Argumentation: Views from the Venice Argumentation Conference. (pp. 37-46). Sic Sat.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2006). Countering fallacious moves. In P. Riley (Ed.), Engaging Argument. Selected Papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation sponsored by the National Communication Association, the American Forensic Association and the University of Utah. (pp. 432-437). National Communication Association.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2006). The case of pragma-dialectics. In S. Parsons, & N. Maudet (Eds.), Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. Second International Workshop, ArgMAS 2005, Revised Selected and Invited Papers. (pp. 1-28). Springer.
  • Garssen, B. J., van Eemeren, F. H., & Meuffels, B. (2006). This can't be true, that would be terrible: Ordinary arguers judgments about ad consequentiam fallacies. In C. A. Willard (Ed.), Critical Problems in Argumentation. Selected Papers (pp. 669-675). National Communication Association.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (Eds.) (2005). Argumentation in Practice. (Controversies; Vol. 2). John Benjamins.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Dascal, M., Rigotti, E., Stati, S., & Rocci, A. (2005). Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction. (Studies in Communication Science; No. 25). Università della Svizzera italiana.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. J., & Rietstap, E. (2005). Overtuigend schrijven. ThiemeMeulenhoff.
Page 15 of 52