Abstract

This study examines the concept of argumentation empirically, to correct the normative conception of argumentation adopted by most scholars since Aristotle. They are not interested in what argumentation is, but in what it ought to be. The pre-Aristotelian approach is preferable, because it recognizes that argumentation, although it includes persuasion, also embraces other eristic techniques in which the speaker does not necessarily seek to persuade, but simply to prevail. This broader descriptive and pragmatic analysis explains the different ways in which discourse actually occurs and particular arguments succeed, leaving in a secondary place the opinion of each author on how they should be.