, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 369–391 | Cite as

Building a System for Finding Objections to an Argument

  • Douglas Walton


This paper addresses the role that argumentation schemes and argument visualization software tools can play in helping to find and counter objections to a given argument one is confronted with. Based on extensive analysis of features of the argumentation in these two examples, a practical four-step method of finding objections to an argument is set out. The study also applies the Carneades Argumentation System to the task of finding objections to an argument, and shows how this system has some capabilities that are especially useful.


Argumentation schemes Proleptic argumentation Argument invention Critical questions Rebuttal Refutation Argument visualization tools Argument from inconsistent commitment 



I would like to thank the two anonymous referees who made helpful comments on this paper, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for providing support in the form of a Standard Research Grant. I would also like to thank Tom Gordon for advice that proved helpful for correcting some errors.


  1. Ballnat, S., and T.F. Gordon. 2010. Goal selection in argumentation processes. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, ed. P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin and G.R. Simari, 51–62. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  2. Buckingham Shum, S.J., A. MacLean, V.M.E. Bellotti, and N.V. Hammond. 1997. Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human–Computer Interaction 12(3): 267–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gordon, T.F. 2005. A computational model of argument for legal reasoning support systems. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence and law, ed. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 53–64. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal.Google Scholar
  4. Gordon, T.F. 2010. An overview of the Carneades argumentation support system. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation, ed. C. Reed and C.W. Tindale, 145–156. London: College.Google Scholar
  5. Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2006. The Carneades argumentation framework: Using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, ed. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 195–207. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gordon, T.F., H. Prakken, and D. Walton. 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171: 875–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Govier, T. 1999. Progress and regress on the dialectical tier. In The philosophy of argument, ed. J. Hoaglund, 223–240. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hitchcock, D., and B. Verheij. 2006. Arguing on the Toulmin model: New essays in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Kalb, C. 2008. Drop that corn dog, doctor. Newsweek October 13: 17.Google Scholar
  10. Kirschner, Paul A., Buckingham Shum, J. Simon, and Chad S. Carr (eds.). 2003. Visualizing argumentation. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Krabbe, E.C.W. 2007. Nothing but objections! In Reason reclaimed, ed. H.V. Hansen and R.C. Pinto, 51–63. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  12. Reed, C., and D. Walton. 2005. Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11: 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Scheuer, O., F. Loll, N. Pinkwart, and B.M. McLaren. 2010. Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 5(1): 43–102.Google Scholar
  14. Toulmin, S. 1964. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Verheij, B. 2008. About the logical relations between cases and rules. Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference ed. E. Francesconi, G. Sartor and D. Tiscornia, 21–32. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  16. Walton, D. 1992. Slippery slope arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Walton, D. 1997. Actions and inconsistency: The closure problem of practical reasoning. In Contemporary action theory, vol. 1, ed. G. Holmstrom-Hintikka and R. Tuomela, 159–175. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Walton, D. 1998. Ad hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  19. Walton, D. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Walton, D. 2008. Proleptic argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy 44: 143–154.Google Scholar
  21. Walton, D. 2009. Objections, rebuttals and refutations. In Argument cultures: Proceedings of the 8th OSSA conference, ed. J. Ritola, 1–10. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar
  22. Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Walton, D., and T. Gordon. 2012. The Carneades model of argument invention. Pragmatics and Cognition (to appear).Google Scholar
  24. Walton, D., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR)University of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations