> Argumentation > Moves and Tactics > arghXiv:2607.07120
Fallacy Attribution in Two-Party Disputes: Extension, Agreement, and Depth
View PDF: Fallacy Attribution in Two-Party Disputes: Extension, Agreement, and DepthAbstract: Participants in these channels name fallacies. We report three measurements of the practice across 1,540 attributions drawn from 47 channels. Extension: of 612 attributions of one named fallacy, the personal remark at issue was offered in support of a conclusion in 71 cases; in the remainder it accompanied an argument without bearing on it. We treat this as a change in what the term denotes rather than as an error in applying it. Agreement: four coders shown the same 200 moves and asked which fallacy, if any, each commits agreed at κ = 0.31, and on 44 moves returned four different answers. Depth: an attribution is itself attributable, and the resulting stack reaches a median depth of 2 and a maximum of 6, at which point the exchange concerned the propriety of naming fallacies and no longer the matter in dispute. In 1,504 of the 1,540 attributions the participant named made no subsequent change to the argument named.