Irrationality in Persuasive Argumentation

  • Paul E. Dunne
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7360)


Much of the formal treatment of argumentation process in AI has analyzed this in terms of proof methodologies grounded in non-classical, especially non-monotonic, logics. Yet one can claim that such approaches, while sufficing to describe the fluid nature of so-called “real-world” debate, e.g. in appeal determination for legal scenarios, ignore one significant component which figures in persuasive debate, i.e. that an argument may be deemed acceptable not because of what constitutes the case put forward but rather because of how this case is advanced. In particular the perceived merits of a case may be coloured by, what are at heart irrational and emotionally driven, responses to its style and presentation rather than its content. In this overview we examine a range of contexts in which tempering emotional appeal in the presentation of an issue may influence the audience to which it is addressed and briefly consider how such situations may formally be modelled, embodied, and exploited within multiagent debates.


Argumentation Framework Background Music Persuasive Argumentation Computational Treatment Defeasible Reasoning 
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.
    Antos, D., Pfeffer, A.: Using emotions to enhance decision-making. In: Proc. IJCAI 2011, Barcelona, pp. 24–30 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aristotle. Ars RhetoricaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Artikis, A., Pitt, J., Sergot, M.J.: Animated specifications of computational societies. In: Proc. AAMAS 2002, pp. 1053–1061. ACM Press, Bologna (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Artikis, A., Pitt, J., Sergot, M.: An executable specification of a formal argumentation protocol. Artificial Intelligence 171, 776–804 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atkinson, K.: What Should We Do?: Computational Representation of Persuasive Argument in Practical Reasoning. Ph. D. thesis, Dept. of Comp. Sci. Univ. of Liverpool (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence 171, 855–874 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (ed.): Knowledge based Systems and Legal Applications. Academic Press (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Jnl. of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171, 619–641 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Sergot, M.J.: Towards a Rule Based Representation of Open Texture in Law. In: Walter, C. (ed.) Computer Power and Legal Language, pp. 39–60. Quorum Books, Westport (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cicero. De OratoreGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and N-person games. In: Proc. IJCAI 1993, Chambery, France, pp. 852–857 (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and N-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eisenstein, S.: The Film Sense. Harcourt Brace and Company (1942)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faulkner, W.: Sanctuary. Jonathan Cape-Harrison Smith (1931)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huxley, A.: The Devils of Loudun. Chatto & Windus (1952)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Joyce, J.: Ulysses. Shakespeare & Co., Paris (1922)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moore, R.C.: Semantical considerations on non-monotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence 25, 75–94 (1985)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nawwab, F.: Agents with a Human Touch: Modeling of Human Rationality in Agent Systems, PhD. Dissertation, Dept. of Comp. Sci. Univ. of Liverpool, Tech. Report, ULCS-10-008 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nawab, F., Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.E.: A Methodology for Action-Selection using Value-Based Argumentation. In: Proc. 2nd COMMA FAIA 172, pp. 264–275. IOS Press (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nawwab, F.S., Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.E.: Emotions in Rational Decision Making. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6057, pp. 273–291. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nawwab, F., Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.E.: Exploring the Role of Emotions in Rational Decision Making. In: Proc. 3rd COMMA FAIA 216, pp. 367–378. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ortony, A., Clore, G., Collins, A.: The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge Univ. Press (1988)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Packard, V.: The Hidden Persuaders. D. McKay Co., New York (1957)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (1969)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible Reasoning. Cognitive Science 11, 481–581 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pollock, J.L.: A theory of defeasible reasoning. Int. Jnl. of Intell. Sys. 6, 33–54 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence 57(1), 1–42 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Quintilian. Institutio OratoriaGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132 (1980)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schöpenhauer, A.: Eristische Dialektik: Die Kunst, Recht zu Behalten (1851)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Searle, J.R.: Rationality in Action. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Steunebrink, B.R., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.J.-C.: A logic of emotions for intelligent agents. In: Proc. AAAI 2007, pp. 142–147 (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Trahndorff, K.F.E.: Ästhetik oder Lehre von Weltanschauung und Kunst, Berlin (1827)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wagner, R.W.: Die Kunst und die Revolution, Leipzig (1849)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wagner, R.W.: Das Kunstwerk der Zukunft, Leipzig (1849)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wagner, R.W.: Oper und Drama, Zurich (1851)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul E. Dunne
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of LiverpoolU.K.

Personalised recommendations