Abstract: Analysis of rhetorical argumentation in votes of no confidence is characterized by the presentation of a new research field. This article puts focus on relations between the Bulgarian Parliament and the government in the framework of political and argumentative discourse of the procedure provided for in the Constitution related to the termination of the government’s mandate in a vote of censure on the executive. In the course of study proves that the debate on votes of no confidence are specific communicative activity that follows its own specific argumentative strategies own legitimation of the political parties (parliamentary groups and executive participating in the debate) and legitimation of political opponents with active use of fallacies. It provides comprehensive analysis of the selected vot of no confidence by 39. Parliament as a result of that analysis the impact of socio-political and institutional context as factors for introduction, debate or shift the debate on the merits. They have been identified argumentative strategies and a number of errors in the informal proof that strengthen the position of the author that the debate on votes of no confidence are fighting for political legitimacy and parliamentary mechanism for verbal interaction, as in the ranks of power and in the ranks of the opposition. The study approbation and use authorial methodology whose tool of analysis is also applicable to other studies, which gives the possibility to practice parliamentary relations in general.
Key words: argumentation, strategic maneuvering, argumentative strategies, vote of no confidence, parliamentary debate, fallacies.
Rhetoric and Communications E-journal, Issue 19, October 2015, rhetoric.bg/, journal.rhetoric.bg, ISSN 1314-4464