Argumentation Aug 2026 Open Access

AI-Authorship Accusations Against Human Discussants: A Pragma-Dialectical Account of Procedural Derailment

Oskar Pogorzelski Krakow University of Economics

Abstract

Abstract This paper offers a pragma-dialectical reconstruction of AI-authorship accusations directed at human discussants: the charge that a contribution is machine-generated or not attributable to a responsible participant. Such an accusation is best understood not as a factual label but as a meta-level procedural move. Introduced during the argumentation stage, it can shift the exchange from the merits of a standpoint to the discussant’s status and the admissibility of starting points, and under specified procedural consequences it triggers a nested opening-stage sub-discussion while leaving the original difference of opinion intact. The paper names the configuration in which discussant status, admissible commitments, and sufficiency thresholds are jointly reclassified procedural capture, and gives the conditions that mark it off from an ordinary personal attack or premise misuse. Its contribution is a symmetrical, default-governed repair protocol, with a warrant-filter for detector-based evidence, that restores critical testing of the original standpoint. The claim is normative rather than descriptive: the worked examples are analytic reconstructions.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2026-08-27
DOI
10.1007/s10503-026-09726-y
CompPile
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (22) · 1 in this index

  1. Assenmacher, D., L. Fröhling, and C. Wagner. 2024. You are a bot! – Studying the development of bot accusatio…
     ↗
  2. Coeckelbergh, M. 2020. AI ethics. MIT Press.
     ↗
  3. Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
  4. L Floridi (2018)
    Floridi, L., J. Cowls, M. Beltrametti, R. Chatila, P. Chazerand, V. Dignum, C. Luetge, R. Madelin, U. Pagallo…
    Minds and Machines  ↗
  5. G Forgács (2014)
    Forgács, G. 2014. Strategic manoeuvring and the selection of starting points in the pragma-dialectical framew…
    Studies in Logic Grammar and Rhetoric  ↗
Show all 22 →
  1. Hamblin, C. L. 1970. Fallacies. Methuen.
  2. W Liang (2023)
    Liang, W., M. Yuksekgonul, Y. Mao, E. Wu, and J. Zou. 2023. GPT detectors are biased against non-native Engli…
    Patterns  ↗
  3. Mitchell, E., Y. Lee, A. Khazatsky, C. D. Manning, and C. Finn. 2023. DetectGPT: Zero-shot machine-generated …
  4. A Rauchfleisch (2020)
    Rauchfleisch, A., and J. Kaiser. 2020. The false positive problem of automatic bot detection in social scienc…
    PLOS ONE  ↗
  5. Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
     ↗
  6. AL Shea (2025)
    Shea, A. L., A. K. B. Omapang, J. Y. Cho, M. Y. Ginsparg, N. N. Bazarova, W. Hui, R. F. Kizilcec, C. Tong, an…
    PLOS ONE  ↗
  7. Tindale, C. W. 1999. Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. State University of New York Press.
  8. Toulmin, S. 2006. The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1958).
  9. van Eemeren, F. H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical t…
     ↗
  10. Eemeren et al. (2023)
    The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to the Fallacies Revisited
    Argumentation
  11. van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical a…
     ↗
  12. van Eemeren, F. H., and P. Houtlosser. 2002. Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In Advances in p…
  13. van Eemeren, F. H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse.…
  14. van Eemeren, F. H., B. Garssen, E. C. W. Krabbe, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J. H. M. Wagemans. 2…
     ↗
  15. Walton, D. 1998. Ad hominem arguments. University of Alabama Press.
  16. Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.
     ↗
  17. Wischnewski, M., R. Bernemann, T. Ngo, and N. Krämer. 2021. Disagree? You must be a bot! How beliefs shape Tw…
     ↗
CrossRef global citation count: 0 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related articles

  1. Rhetoric Society Quarterly May 2025
    “What’s Crazy Is Look How Better I Got”: Rethinking Ethos in the Crisis of Perpetual Stasis ↗
    Amy Koerber; Tameem Al-Shawaf
    argument
  2. Philosophy & Rhetoric Apr 2025
    The Problem of Democratic Persuasion ↗
    Linda M. G. Zerilli
    argument
  3. Philosophy & Rhetoric Dec 2024
    Can Rational Persuasion Be Epistemically Paternalistic? ↗
    Patrick Bondy
    argument
  4. Philosophy & Rhetoric Dec 2024
    Argument’s Autonomy Problem ↗
    John Casey
    argument
  5. Philosophy & Rhetoric Dec 2024
    Autonomy and Argumentation: An Introduction ↗
    John Casey; Katharina Stevens
    argument