oa Gedrag als bewijs

This contribution deals with arguments that make an appeal to the arguer’s own or someone else’s behaviour in order to make the standpoint likely. Such arguments resemble descriptions of classical rhetorical plausibility topoi related to the conjectural status (concerning the issue whether the accused ‘did or did not do it’). Today, argumentation studies hardly pay any attention to these kinds of argument. The few authors that do deal with them consider them as causal or symptomatic arguments. In this contribution it is argued that such a characterization does not cover all aspects of these arguments being relevant for their evaluation. Arguments in which an appeal to behaviour is made should be treated as arguments from authority and, at least partly, be evaluated as such. An overview of variants of behaviour-arguments is presented and it is shown which critical questions apply to each.