Argumentation Theory: A Very Short Introduction

  • Douglas WaltonEmail author

Since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers and rhetoricians, argumentation theorists have searched for the requirements that make an argument correct, by some appropriate standard of proof, by examining the errors of reasoning we make when we try to use arguments. These errors have long been called fallacies, and the logic textbooks have for over 2000 years tried to help students to identify these fallacies, and to deal with them when they are encountered. The problem was that deductive logic did not seem to be much use for this purpose, and there seemed to be no other obvious formal structure that could usefully be applied to them.


Opening Stage Argumentation Scheme Short Introduction Argumentation Theory Natural Language Text 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Walton. and C. Reed and F. Macagno. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Logic and Computation, 13:429–448, 2003.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. E. Dunne. Argumentation and dialogue in artificial intelligence, IJCAI 2005 tutorial notes. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Besnard and A. Hunter. Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, USA, 2008.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321–358, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. F. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D. Walton. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10–15):875–896, 2007.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. L. Hamblin. Fallacies. Methuen, London, UK, 1970.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. J. Hurley. A Concise Introduction to Logic. Belmot, Wadsworth, CA, USA, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. H. Johnson and A. J. Blair. The current state of informal logic. Informal Logic, 9:147–151, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. C. W. Krabbe. Nothing but objections. In H. V. Hansen and R. C. Pinto, editors, Reason Reclaimed. Vale Press, Newport News, Virginia, USA, 2007.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. H. Peter McBurney and S. Parsons. The eightfold way of delib-eration dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1):95–132, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Prakken. Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(2):163–188, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 97–106. ACM Press, New York NY, USA, 2007.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Reed and G. Rowe. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis. International Journal of AI Tools, 14(3–4):961–980, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Rescher. Introduction to Logic. St. Martin’s Press, New York NY, USA, 1964.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. Thorsrud. Cicero on his academics predecessors: the fallibilism of Arcesilaus and Carneades. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 40(1):1–18, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. H. van Eemeren and R. F. Grootendorst. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. N. Walton and E. C. W. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, Albany NY, USA, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Wells and C. Reed. Knowing when to bargain: the roles of negotiation and persuasion in dialogue. In F. Grasso, R. Kibble, and C. Reed, editors, Proceedings of the ECAI workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA), Riva del Garda, Italy, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations