Reconceiving Argument Schemes as Descriptive and Practically Normative

Abstract We propose a revised definition of “argument scheme” that focuses on describing argumentative performances and normative assessments occur within an context, the social context in which scheme arises. Our premise-and-conclusion structure identifies typical instantiation argument our critical framework describes set available to participants what we call practically assessments. distinguish this practical normativity from rationally or universally assessment might be imposed outside context. Thus, norms represented may still subject rational critique, avoids is/ought fallacy. ground theoretical discussion observations empirical study US district court opinions resolving legal questions about copyright fair use lawyers’ briefs led them, instantiating for classification by precedent.” addresses some criticisms argument-scheme construct has received. For example, using data, show minimally well formed instance type does not shift any conventional burden proponent its skeptics. also argue these schemes need seen as dialogical.