Jan Laar [3]Jan Albert Laar [2]Jan Albert van Laar [2]
  1.  29
    Splitting a Difference of Opinion: The Shift to Negotiation.Erik Krabbe & Jan Laar - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (3):329-350.
    Negotiation is not only used to settle differences of interest but also to settle differences of opinion. Discussants who are unable to resolve their difference about the objective worth of a policy or action proposal may be willing to abandon their attempts to convince the other and search instead for a compromise that would, for each of them, though only a second choice yet be preferable to a lasting conflict. Our questions are: First, when is it sensible to enter into (...)
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  2.  9
    The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance.Jan Albert Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):201-224.
    Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convincingly. Other critical reactions convey some or even all of the considerations that make the critic critical of the arguer’s position and direct the arguer to defuse or to at least contend with them. First, an explication of the notion of a critical reaction will be provided, zooming in on the degree of “directiveness” that a critical reaction displays. Second, it will be examined whether (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  3.  19
    The Role of Argument in Negotiation.Erik Krabbe & Jan Laar - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (4):549-567.
    The purpose of this paper is to show the pervasive, though often implicit, role of arguments in negotiation dialogue. This holds even for negotiations that start from a difference of interest such as mere bargaining through offers and counteroffers. But it certainly holds for negotiations that try to settle a difference of opinion on policy issues. It will be demonstrated how a series of offers and counteroffers in a negotiation dialogue contains a reconstructible series of implicit persuasion dialogues. The paper (...)
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  4. The dialectic of ambiguity : a contribution to the study of argumentation.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
    The three research questions of this study have been: what exactly is active ambiguity?; how should we assess active ambiguities in an argumentative discussion?; what does an adequate dialectical account of active ambiguity look like? These three questions have been answered by giving a definition of active ambiguity, and by elaborating on the properties of active ambiguity. Based on the survey of possible consequences of active ambiguities, and based on the basic division of labour in a persuasion dialogue, we arrived (...)
    No categories
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  5.  5
    That’s no argument! The dialectic of non-argumentation.Jan Laar & Erik Krabbe - 2015 - Synthese 192 (4):1173-1197.
    What if in discussion the critic refuses to recognize an emotionally expressed argument of her interlocutor as an argument, accusing him of having presented no argument at all. In this paper, we shall deal with this reproach, which taken literally amounts to a charge of having committed a fallacy of non-argumentation. As such it is a very strong, if not the ultimate, criticism, which even carries the risk of abandonment of the discussion and can, therefore, not be made without burdening (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  6.  5
    Motivated Doubts: A Comment on Walton's Theory of Criticism.Jan Albert van Laar - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):221-230.
    In his theory of criticism, D. N. Walton presupposes that an opponent either critically questions an argument, without supplementing this questioning with any reasoning of her own, or that she puts forward a critical question and supplements it with a counterargument, that is, with reasoning in defense of an opposite position of her own. In this paper, I show that there is a kind of in-between critical option for the opponent that needs to be taken into account in any classification (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
  7.  9
    J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson (eds): Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning. [REVIEW]Jan Albert Laar - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):337-344.