Abstract

We discuss the strategy of using dyslogistic terms in a novel, laudatory manner, or eulogistic terms pejoratively. By such up- and downgrading of evaluative terms the proponent of a standpoint may attempt to turn the tables in a public controversy: what formerly looked like a bad argument comes to be regarded as a strong one, or vice versa. Is this a licit strategy? We take our lead from Macagno and Walton who examined evaluative words from an argumentative stance.