Three Senses of “Argument”

  • Adam Z. Wyner
  • Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon
  • Katie Atkinson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4884)

Abstract

In AI approaches to argumentation, different senses of argument are often conflated. We propose a three-level distinction between arguments, cases, and debates. This allows us to modularise issues into separate levels and identify systematic relations between levels. Arguments, comprised of rules, facts, and a claim, are the basic units; they instantiate argument schemes; they have no sub-arguments. Cases are sets of arguments supporting a claim. Debates are sets of arguments in an attack relation; they include cases for and against a particular claim. Critical questions, which are characteristic of the particular argument schemes, are used to determine the attack relation between arguments. In a debate, rankings on arguments or argument relations are given as components based on features of argument schemes. Our analysis clarifies the role and contribution of distinct approaches in the construction of rational debate. It identifies the source of properties used for evaluating the status of arguments in Argumentation Frameworks.

Keywords

argumentation argument case debate 

References

  1. 1.
    Reed, C., Rowe, G.: Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 13(4), 961–980 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hunter, A.: Making argumentation more believable. In: [15], pp. 269–274Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hunter, A.: Towards higher impact argumentation. In [15], pp. 275–280Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: An axiomatic account of formal argumentation. In: Veloso, M.M., Kambhampati, S. (eds.) Proceedings of The Twentieth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, July 9-13, 2005, pp. 608–613. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walton, D.: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–358 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pollock, J.: Defensible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artificial Intelligence 133, 233–282 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prakken, H.: Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. J. Autom. Reason 29(2), 125–169 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Atkinson, K.: What Should We Do?: Computational Representation of Persuasive Argument in Practical Reasoning. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ashley, K.: Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Bradford Books/MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McGuinness, D.L., Ferguson, G.: Proceedings of the Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Sixteenth Conference on Innovative Applica tions of Artificial Intelligence, July 25-29, 2004. AAAI Press / The MIT Press, San Jose (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam Z. Wyner
    • 1
  • Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon
    • 1
  • Katie Atkinson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations