Within a natural-deduction framework, Tranchini (2012b see Other Internet Resources) has proposed to consider derivations of absurdity as "arguments" rather than "proofs", understanding arguments as senses of derivations and proofs as their denotations, so that a non-normalizable derivation of absurdity is meaningful, but lacks a denotation.
Endorsing the argument-2 conception of argument, Gilbert 1997 (cf. Carozza 2007) proposes a radical move in this direction, understanding argumentation as an attempt to overcome disagreement, propounding a corresponding theory of "coalescent argument".
With this understanding, arguments about whether Hillary Clinton is liberal or conservative enough, or takes good enough care of her email, begin to sound ludicrous.
Insofar as it takes persuasion to be the goal of argument, it recognizes its social function and the role this must play in understanding successful argument.
I think people are understanding that argument to mean something other than it does.
The relationships among man and the city, energy, and natural resources aid us in understanding my argument (and there are many contact points between energy and technology).
But even understanding the Argument from Queerness in a non-generic sense is no straightforward matter, since it is not entirely clear what Mackie intends to put in place of "X".
Understanding his argument requires a basic understanding of how the the U.S. collects taxes on profits earned abroad, and how pretty much everyone else does it.
Understanding how arguments are made in these sections of journal articles is crucial to being able to teach students how to meet this rhetorical challenge.
Even as Guthrie was writing the first two volumes of his History, a shift was underway toward understanding Parmenides' arguments as driven by strictly logical considerations rather than by any critical agenda with respect to the theories of his Ionian or Pythagorean predecessors.
