Where do the rules of critical discussion get their normative force? What kinds of norms are involved? Unreasonable behaviour in the critical discussion - e.g., continuing to assert the contradictory of a proven standpoint, performing some Cable Retainer action pragmatically inconsistent with a proven standpoint, or the same with regard to the starting-points agreed to in the opening stage - is liable to moral sanction.Thus, a moral/ethical norm is involved and the rules must have a moral force.
Pragma-dialectics as it stands does not seem to account Metal License Plate for this moral force.I will attempt to fill this gap in pragma-dialectical theory.