La forma y no el fondo argumentativo de 12 hombres sin piedad

  1. Duarte, Antonio 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Aldizkaria:
Revista iberoamericana de argumentación

ISSN: 2172-8801

Argitalpen urtea: 2024

Zenbakien izenburua: La argumentación en sus contextos. Actas del II CIbA - Madrid 2023

Zenbakia: 2

Orrialdeak: 129-140

Mota: Artikulua

DOI: 10.15366/RIA2024.M2.010 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openSarbide irekia editor

Beste argitalpen batzuk: Revista iberoamericana de argumentación

Laburpena

Argumentative evaluation requires the definition of ideal models or argumentation structures within which the actual arguments are framed. In this article I argue that the narrative of 12 angry men shows us a perfectly defined argumentative framework, close to an ideal model. Following Walton’s work and the concepts or variables he defines to establish the theoretical models prior to the evaluation of argumentative practices, and his constant concern for the human way of arguing, we will show the masterful resolution of the film to be framed in an ideal argumentative model. Context of dialogue, shift of the burden of proof, types of dialogue, persuasion dialogue, and the maieutic function are the concepts that will help us to establish a correspondence between Walton's theory and the screenplay of 12 angry men.

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser (2007). “The Contextuality of Fallacies”. Informal Logic 27(1), 59-67.
  • Wagemans, J. H. M. (2011). “The Assessment of Argumentation from Expert Opinion”. Argumentation 25, 329-339.
  • Walton, D.N. (1988). “Burden of Proof”. Argumentation 2, 233-254.
  • Walton, D.N. (1991). Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation. New York: Greenwood Press.
  • Walton, D.N. (1992a). Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Walton, D.N. (1992b). Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Walton, D.N. (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Studies in Rhetoric and Communication. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
  • Walton, D.N. (1996a). Fallacies Arising from Ambiguity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Walton, D.N. (1996b). Arguments from Ignorance. University Park, Pa.: Penn State Press.
  • Walton, D.N. (1996c). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. New York: Routledge
  • Walton, D.N. (1997a). Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. University Park, Pa.: Penn State Press.
  • Walton, D.N. (1997b). Appeal to Pity: Argumentum ad Misericordiam. Albany: SUNY Press.
  • Walton, D.N. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
  • Walton, D.N. (1999). Appeal to Popular Opinion. University Park, Pa.: Penn State Press.
  • Walton, D.N. (2004). Abductive Reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
  • Walton, D.N. (2007a). Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.
  • Walton, D.N. (2007b). Character Evidence: An Abductive Theory. Berlin: Springer.
  • Walton, D.N. (2008). Informal Logic: a pragmatic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Walton, D.N. (2014). Burden of Proof, Presumption and Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Walton, D. N., C. Reed and F. Macagno (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Datuen iturria: Dialnet