Reasonableness requirements in argumentative discourse

The general aim of a critical evaluation of argumentative discourse is to determine to what extent the discourse conducted contributes to resolving the difference of opinion on the merits. The touchstone for deciding about the reasonableness of the discourse is the code of conduct for conducting a critical discussion in argumentative discourse. This code of conduct consists of ten rules that must be observed in reasonable argumentative discourse. It applies to the protagonist of a standpoint as well as the antagonist, and the rules cover all stages of the argumentative process. In every stage of the argumentative process, each of the parties can violate one or more of the rules of the code of conduct. When such a violation occurs, a fallacy is committed, so that the strategic maneuvering derails into fallaciousness. Because in the various kinds of institutional contexts in which the strategic maneuvering can be embedded, different exigencies prevail; in some cases, a certain differentiation may be required in the application of the general standards of reasonableness that are incorporated in the rules of the code of conduct for reasonable argumentative discourse. As a consequence, in these cases, the commitment of some fallacies may also become context dependent.