Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Computational Tools Can Help Rhetoric and Informal Logic with Argument Invention

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper compares the features and methods of the two leading implemented systems that offer a tool for helping a user to find or invent arguments to support or attack a designated conclusion, the Carneades Argumentation System and the IBM Watson Debater tool. The central aim is to contribute to the understanding of scholars in informal logic, rhetoric and argumentation on how these two software systems can be useful for them. One contribution of the paper is to explain to these potential users how the two tools are applicable to the task of inventing arguments by using some simple illustrative examples. Another is to redefine the structure of argument invention as a procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEf0GLvrP9U.

  2. https://github.com/carneades.

  3. http://carneades.fokus.fraunhofer.de/carneades.

References

  • Aharoni, E., C. Alzate, A. Bar-Haim, Y. Bilu, L. Dankin, I. Eiron, D. Hershkovich, S. Hummerl, M. Khapra, T. Lavee, R. Levy, P. Matchen, A. Polnarov, V. Raykar, R. Rinott, A. Saha, N. Zwerdling, D. Konopnicki, D. Gutfreund, and N. Slonim 2014. Claims on Demand—An Initial Demonstration of a System for Automatic Detection and Polarity Identification of Context Dependent Claims in Massive Corpora. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2014), Dublin, Ireland, 6–9. Available as of 2014/12/17 at: http://anthology.aclweb.org/C/C14/C14-2002.pdf.

  • Anon. 2014. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining ACL 2014. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2014. Available at: http://acl2014.org/acl2014/W14-21/index.html.

  • Anon. 2015. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Argumentation Mining, June 4, 2015, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2015. Available at: https://aclweb.org/anthology/W/W15/W15-05.pdf.

  • Aristotle. 1991. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civil Discourse, ed. G.A. Kennedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Arnauld, A. 1662. La Logique, ou l’Art de Penser [Commonly called the Port-Royal Logic]. Translated into English as The Art of Thinking, Dickoff, J. and James, P., 1964. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

  • Ashley, K.D. (2014). Automatically Extracting Arguments from Legal Texts: A Position Paper. Paper Presented at the Met-Arg Workshop, JURIX 2014.

  • Ashley, K. 2017. Artificial Intelligence and Legal Analytics: New Tools for Law Practice in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, Trevor J.M., Sylvie Doutre, and Paul E. Dunne. 2007. Audiences in Argumentation Frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 171 (1): 42–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrio, E., and S. Villata. 2012, Combining Textual Entailment and Argumentation Theory for Supporting Online Debate Interactions. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, 208–212.

  • Cicero, M.T. 1949. De Inventione (Loeb Library Edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Dagan, I., O. Glickman, and B. Magnini. 2006. The PASCAL Recognizing Textual Entailment Challenge. http://eprints.pascal-network.org/archive/00001298/01/dagan_et_al_rte05.pdf.

  • Dagan, I., B. Dolan, B. Magnini, and D. Roth. 2009. Recognizing Textual Entailment: Rational Evaluation and Approaches. Natural Language Engineering 15(4), i–xvii.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fruwirth, T. 2009. Constraint Handling Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T.F. 2010. The Carneades Argumentation Support System. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation, ed. C. Reed and C.W. Tindale, 145–156. London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T.F. 2011a. Combining Rules and Ontologies with Carneades. In Proceedings of the 5th International RuleML2011@BRF Challenge, CEUR Workshop Proceedings103–110.

  • Gordon, T.F. 2011b. Analyzing Open Source License Compatibility Issues with Carneades. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-2011), 50–55. New York, NY: ACM Press.

  • Gordon, T.F., H. Prakken, and D. Walton. 2007. The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15), 875–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2009. Proof Burdens and Standards. In Argumentation and Artificial Intelligence, ed. Iyad Rahwan and Guillermo Simari, 239–260. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T.F., and H. Friedrich. 2017. Representing Argumentation Schemes with Constraint Handling Rules, CMNA 2017.

  • Kennedy, G. 1963. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M. 1997. On the Art of Finding Arguments: What Ancient and Modern Masters of Invention Have to Tell Us About the Ars Inveniendi. Argumentation 11(2): 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, J., Bex, F., and C. Reed. 2012. Dialogues on the Argument Web: Mixed Initiative Argumentation with Arvina. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), 513–514. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

  • Levy, R., Y. Bilu, D. Hershcovich, E. Aharoni, and M. Slonim. 2014. Context Dependent Claim Detection, Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2014), Dublin, Ireland, 1489–1500. Available as of 2014/12/17 at: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C/C14/C14-1141.pdf.

  • Mochales, R., and M.-F. Moens. (2011). Argumentation Mining. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peldszus, A., and M. Stede. 2013. From Argument Diagrams to Argumentation Mining in Texts. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence 7(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.L. 1995. Cognitive Carpentry. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. 2010. An Abstract Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments. Argument & Computation 1(2), 93–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taboada, M., and W.C. Mann (2006). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking Back and Moving Ahead. Discourse Studies 8(3), 423–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toni, F. 2014. A Tutorial on Assumption-Based Argumentation. Argument and Computation 5(1), 89–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turney, P. 2002. Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down? Semantic Orientation Applied to Unsupervised Classification of Reviews. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 417–424.

  • Verheij, B. 2005. Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verheij, B. 2008. About the Logical Relations Between Cases and Rules. In 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 

  • Walton, D. 1994. Begging the Question as a Pragmatic Fallacy. Synthese 100: 95–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2002. Are Some Modus Ponens Arguments Deductively Invalid? Informal Logic, 22(1): 19–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., and T.F. Gordon. 2012. The Carneades Model of Argument Invention. Pragmatics and Cognition 20(1): 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. and T.F. Gordon. 2017. Argument Invention with the Carneades Argumentation System. ScriptED: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society 14(2): 168–207.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research on Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4, Canada

    Douglas Walton

  2. Fraunhofer FOKUS, Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31, 10589, Berlin, Germany

    Thomas F. Gordon

Authors
  1. Douglas Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas F. Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas Walton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walton, D., Gordon, T.F. How Computational Tools Can Help Rhetoric and Informal Logic with Argument Invention. Argumentation 33, 269–295 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9439-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9439-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation