text: The*pragmatic*or*dialogical approach*to informal logic sees arguments as speech acts and not merely as 
  a set of premises together with a conclusion.[142] As speech acts, they occur in a certain context, like a 
  dialogue, which affects the standards of right and wrong arguments.[143] A prominent version by Douglas 
  N. Walton understands a dialogue as a game between two players. The initial position of each player is 
  characterized by the propositions to which they are committed and the conclusion they intend to prove. 
  Dialogues are games of persuasion: each player has the goal of convincing the opponent of their own 
  conclusion.[144] This is achieved by making arguments: arguments are the moves of the game.[145] They 
  affect to which propositions the players are committed. A winning move is a successful argument that 
  takes the opponent's commitments as premises and shows how one's own conclusion follows from them. 
  This is usually not possible straight away. For this reason, it is normally necessary to formulate a 
  sequence of arguments as intermediary steps, each of which brings the opponent a little closer to one's 
  intended conclusion. Besides these positive arguments leading one closer to victory, there are also 
  negative arguments preventing the opponent's victory by denying their conclusion.[144] Whether an 
  argument is correct depends on whether it promotes the progress of the dialogue. Fallacies, on the other 
  hand, are violations of the standards of proper argumentative rules.[146] These standards also depend on 
  the type of dialogue. For example, the standards governing the scientific discourse differ from the 
  standards in business negotiations.[147] 