Editing Fallacy (section)

== Assessment: pragmatic theory ==
{{See also|Argumentation scheme}}
According to the pragmatic theory,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Walton |first=Douglas N. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4uTWAAAAMAAJ |title=A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy |publisher=[[University of Alabama Press]] |year=1995 |isbn=978-0817307981 |location=Tuscaloosa |pages=324 |author-link=Douglas N. Walton}}</ref> a fallacy can be either a heuristic error or a ploy used intentionally to unfairly win an argument. There are always two parties to an argument containing a fallacy: the perpetrator and the intended victim. 

The dialogue framework required to support the pragmatic theory of fallacy is built on the presumption that argumentative dialogue has both an adversarial component and a collaborative component. A dialogue has individual goals for each participant as well as shared goals that apply to all participants. A fallacy of the second kind is seen as more than simply a violation of the rule of reasonable dialogue. It is also a deceptive tactic of argumentation based on sleight-of-hand. Aristotle explicitly compared contentious reasoning to unfair fighting in athletic contests. But the roots of the pragmatic theory go back even further in history, to the Sophists. The pragmatic theory finds its roots in the Aristotelian conception of a fallacy as a sophistical refutation but also supports the view that many of the types of arguments traditionally labeled as fallacies are in fact reasonable techniques of argumentation that can be used, in many cases, to support legitimate goals of dialogue. Hence, under the pragmatic approach, each case needs to be analyzed individually to determine whether the argument is fallacious or reasonable.