Reasoning Dialogues

Abstract

When people argue with others in conversation, they make a variety of conversational moves: They make claims, ask for justification of others claims, attack claims, and attack claims justifications. The arrangement of these moves gives argumentation its characteristic shape. This article illustrates a proposed format for conversations of this type, and it reviews some findings about the way people understand and evaluate these conversations. The findings suggest that judgments of the arguers burden depend not only on the content of their claims, but also on the conversation s structure. In addition, judgments of the strength of a justification an arguer s evidence or explanation are a function of the argument s setting.