Abstract
The questions concerning rationality and the ethics of verbal occurrences are at the centre of the deliberations of social communication. The antagonistic and cooperative functions of social discourses are connected with the notion of a conflict and the capability of solving it. Argumentative discourse as one of the types of social discourse is discussed within the framework of pragmatic, dialectic and rhetorical models. This paper is an attempt at critical assessment of the pragma-dialectical model of argumentation proposed by Frans H. Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst. I defend the standpoint that the application of the pragma-dialectical model to the analysis of argumentation reliability in a naturally occurring discussion requires an expansion of the concepts introduced in the pragma-dialectical theory.
The starting point is the assumption of an error of the pragma-dialectical conviction that infringement of one of the rules of critical discussion developed by Frans H. Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, and at the same time the expression of an argument not leading to resolution of the dispute between the discussion participants, is a proper criterion of an argument’s fallaciousness assessment.