Publications

2012

• F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen & B. Meuffels (2012). The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated; strategic maneuvering with direct personal attacks. Thinking and Reasoning.
• F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen & B. Meuffels (2012). Effectiveness through reasonableness: a pragma-dialectical perspective: preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. Argumentation, 26(1), 33-53.

2011

• F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen & B. Meuffels (2011). The extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory empirically interpreted. In F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 411-422). Amsterdam: Rozenberg/SicSat.
• J.C. Visser, F. Bex, C. Reed & B.J. Garssen (in press). Correspondence between the pragma-dialectical discussion model and the argument interchange format. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 23(36), 1-36.

2010

• B. Garssen & J.A. van Laar (2010). A pragma-dialectical response to objectivist epistemic challenges. Informal logic, 30(2), 122-141.
• F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (2010). Linguistic criteria for judging composition and division fallacies. In A. Capone (Ed.), Perspectives on language use and pragmatics: a volume in memory of Sorin Stati (LINCOM studies in pragmatics, 16) (pp. 35-50). München: Lincom Europa.
• F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (2010). 'In varietate concordia' - United in diversity: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia, 7(1), 19-37.
• F. van Eemeren, B. Garssen & B. Meuffels (2010). De uitgebreide pragma-dialectische argumentatietheorie empirisch geïnterpreteerd. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 32(1), 49-62.

2009

• F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (2009). The fallacies of composition and division revisited. Cogency, 1(1), 23-42.
• B.J. Garssen (2009). Ad hominem in disguise: strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks. Argumentation and Advocacy.
• B. Garssen & J.A. van Laar (2009). De pragma-dialectiek en de objectieve epistemische benadering van argumentatie. In W. Spooren, M. Onrust & J. Sanders (Eds.), Studies in taalbeheersing 3 (pp. 73-83). Assen: Van Gorcum.
• B. Garssen (2009). Comparing the incomparable: figurative analogies in a dialectical testing procedure. In F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation: twenty essays on theoretical issues (Argumentation library, 14) (pp. 133-140). [Dordrecht]: Springer.
• F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (2009). Putting pragma-dialectics into practice. In J. Sobocan & L. Groarke (Eds.), Critical thinking education and assessment: can higher order thinking be tested? (pp. 247-262) London, ONT: Althouse.
• F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (2009). Analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. In J. Renkema (Ed.), Discourse, of course: an overview of research in discourse studies (pp. 171-184). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• F. van Eemeren, B. Garssen & B. Meuffels (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules (Argumentation library, 16). Dordrecht: Springer.

2008

• F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.). (2008). Controversy and confrontation: relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (Controversies, 6). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (2008). Controversy and confrontation in argumentative discourse. In F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation: relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (Controversies, 6) (pp. 1-26). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (2008). Preface. In F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation: relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (Controversies, 6) (pp. vii-viii). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• B. Garssen (2008). Seemingly unreasonable Ad hominem fallacies and legitimate personal attacks. In T. Suzuki, T. Kato & A. Kubuta (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Argumentation: argumentation, the law and justice (pp. 66-69). Tokyo: Japan Debate Association.
• F. van Eemeren, B. Garssen & B. Meuffels (2008). Reasonableness in confrontation: empirical evidence concerning the assessment of ad hominem fallacies. In F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation: relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (Controversies, 6) (pp. 181-195). Amsterdam etc.: John Benjamins.
• B. Garssen (2008). Comments on ''Arguing 'for' the patient: Informed consent and strategic maneuvering in doctor-patient interaction". Argumentation, 22(3), 433-435.

2007

• B.J. Garssen (2007). Comparing the incomparable: Figurative analogies in a dialectical testing procedure. In F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, Ch..A. Willard & B.J. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 437-440). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
• B.J. Garssen (2007). Esquemas argumentativos (translation). In R. Marafioti (Ed.), Parlamentos. Teoría de la argumentación y debate parlamentario. Buenos Aires: Editorial Biblos.
• F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen & B. Meuffels (2007). De conventionele deugdelijkheid van de pragma-dialectische discussieregels. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 29(3), 251-274.
• F.H. van Eemeren, B.J. Garssen & B. Meuffels (2007). Convergent operations in empirical ad hominem research. In F.H..van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, Ch.A. Willard & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 367-373). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

2006

• A.F. Snoeck Henkemans & B.J. Garssen (Eds.). (2006). De redelijkheid zelve. Tien pragma-dialectische opstellen voor Frans van Eemeren. Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publications.
• F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen & B. Meuffels (2006). Apples and oranges, peer pressure, and other such troublemakers: ordinary arguers' opinions about violations of the pragma-dialectical argument scheme rule. In P. Riley & C. Willis-Chun (Eds.), Engaging argument: selected papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation: sponsored by the National Communication Association, the American Forensics Association, and the University of Utah (pp. 445-452). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
• F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen & B. Meuffels (2006). La validez convencional de la regla pragma-dialectica de libertad. Praxis, 9, 17-32.
• B.J. Garssen, F.H. van Eemeren & B. Meuffels (2006). This can't be true, that would be terrible: Ordinary arguers judgments about ad consequentiam fallacies. In C.A. Willard (Ed.), Critical Problems in Argumentation. Selected Papers (pp. 669-675). Washington DC: National Communication Association.
• B.J. Garssen (2006). Beweringen met nare consequenties: twee varianten van het argumentum ad consequentiam. In B.J. Garssen & F.H. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), De redelijkheid zelve. Tien pragma-dialectische opstellen voor Frans van Eemeren. Amsterdam: Rozenberg.

2011

• E. Feteris, B. Garssen & F. Snoeck Henkemans (2011). Introduction. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: in honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 1-4). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

2009

• F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (2009). 'In varietate concordia' - United in diversity: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures: proceedings of OSSA '09 [cd-rom] (pp. [1-15]). Windsor, ONT: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.

2007

• F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, CH.A. Willard & B.J. Garssen (2007). Preface. In F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, CH.A. Willard & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. xv). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
• F.H. van Eemeren & B.J. Garssen (2007). Kwantitatief emperisch onderzoek van argumentatie. Ter inleiding. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 29(3), 193-195.
• B.J. Garssen (2007). Argumenten in lijn. Een mening met een kaart funderen. Tekstblad: tijdschrift over tekst en communicatie, 13(3), 16-19.