Abstract

From a dialectical point of view, the evaluation of argumentation includes consideration of how well it deals with counter-arguments. This corresponds with one of the requirements developed in Dutch jurisprudence: if the justification of a ju dicial decision does not reflect on essential counter-arguments, the decision may be quashed in appeal. I will first examine what textual clues identify counter-arguments and objections, and then discuss the criteria that are used in legal practice to ev aluate how well the justification responds to counter-arguments and objections. Finally, I compare these with proposals for dialectical criteria.