[Benoit, P. J. (1992). Characteristics of Arguing from a Social Actors Perspective. In: Benoit W. L. (ed.), Readings in Argumentation. Berlin: De Gruyter.]Search in Google Scholar
[Benoit, W. L. (1992). Traditional Conceptions of Argument. In: Benoit, W. L. (ed.), Readings in Argumentation. Berlin: De Gruyter.]Search in Google Scholar
[Didilescu, I.–Botezatu, P. (1976). Silogistica. Bucharest: Ed. Didactică şi Pedagogică.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ehninger, D. (1992). Argument as Method: Its Nature, Its Limitations and Its Uses. In: Benoit, W. L. (ed.), Readings in Argumentation. Berlin: De Gruyter.]Search in Google Scholar
[Feteris, E. T. (1999). Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-015-9219-2]Search in Google Scholar
[Freeley, A. J.–Steinberg, D. L. (2005). Argumentation and Debate. Boston: Wadsworth.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hample, D. (1977). The Toulmin Model and the Syllogism. Journal of the American Forensic Association 14(3).10.1080/00028533.1977.11951111]Search in Google Scholar
[Micheli, R. (2012). Arguing without Trying to Persuade? Elements for a Non-Persuasive Definition of Argumentation. Argumentation 26(1): 115.]Search in Google Scholar
[Van Eemeren, F. H.–Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511616389]Search in Google Scholar
[(2016). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. London: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[Van Eemeren, F. H.–Grootendorst, R.–Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2009). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. New York: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. New York: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
