[
Aikin, S. F., & Talisse, R. B. (2019). Epicureans on squandering life. Three Quarks Daily. URL=https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2019/02/epicureanson-squandering-life.html (accessed 10 FEB 2022).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Aikin, S. F., & Talisse, R. B. (2022). Epicureans on Death and Lucretius’ Squandering Argument. Southwest Philosophy Review, 38(1), 41–49.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Amgoud, L., & Cayrol, C. (2002). A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34 (1–3), 197–215.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Barth E., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue. Berlin: de Gruyter.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Baroni, P., Caminada, M., & Giacomin, M. (2018). Abstract argumentation frameworks and their semantics. Handbook of Formal Argumentation (chapter 4, pp. 159–236.) London: College Publications.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bayes, T. (1763/1958). An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 53, 370–418. (Reprinted in Biometrika, 45, 296–315.)
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bex, F. J. & Renooij, S. (2016). From Arguments to Constraints on a Bayesian Network. Computational Models of Argument. In P. Baroni, T. F. Gordon, T. Scheer and M. Stede (eds.) (2019), Proceedings of COMMA 2016, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, volume 287 (pp. 96–106). IOS Press: Amsterdam.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Brown, T. A., & Moore, M. T. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 361–379). New York, N.Y.: The Guilford Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Darke, P. R., & Chaiken, S. (2005). The pursuit of self-interest: Self-interest bias in attitude judgment and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 864–883.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L. J. (1963). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychological Review, 70(3), 193–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0038674
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Finocchiaro, M. (2007). Arguments, meta-arguments, and metadialogues: A reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods. Argumentation, 21, 253–268.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Finocchiaro, M. (2013). Meta-argumentation: An approach to logic and argumentation theory. London: College Publications.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Godden, D., & Zenker, F. (2018). A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency. Synthese, 195, 1715–1740.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gordon, T. F., & Walton, D. (2006). The Carneades argumentation framework. In P. E. Dunne & T. J. M. Bench-Capon (Eds.), Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006 (pp. 195–207). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Govier, T. (1985). A practical study of argument, 1st through 7th editions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007). The rationality of informal argumentation: a bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114, 704–732.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hahn, U., & Hornikx, J. (2016). A normative framework for argument quality: Argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation. Synthese, 193, 1833–1873.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hamblin, C. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hamblin, C. (1971). Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria, 37, 130–155.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and brain sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hitchcock, D. (1983). Critical Thinking: A Guide to Evaluating Information. Toronto: Methuen.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A., (1977). Logical self-defense. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Keiff, L. (2011). Dialogue logic. In E. Zalta et al. (Eds.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/logic-dialogical/ (accessed 5 OCT 2019)
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kononova, A., Yuan, S., & Joo, E. (2017). Reading about the flu online: How health-protective behavioral intentions are influenced by media multitasking, polychronicity, and strength of health-related arguments. Health Communication, 32(6), 759–767.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Korb, K. (2004). Bayesian informal logic and fallacy. Informal Logic, 24, 41–70.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krabbe, E. C. W. (1992). So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuasion dialogue. Argumentation, 6, 271–283.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krabbe, E. C. W. (1999). Profiles of dialogue. In J. Gerbrandy, M., Marx, M. de Rijke, & Y. Venema (Eds.), JFAK: Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday (pp. 25–36). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2002). Profiles of dialogue as a dialectical tool. In F.H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 153–167). Amsterdam– Newport News, VA: Sic Sat/Vale Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krabbe E. C. W. (2003). Metadialogues In: van Eemeren F.H., J.A. Blair, C. Willard C., and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view (pp. 83–90). Dordrecht: Springer.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2013). The topical roots of formal dialectic. Argumentation, 27, 71–87.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krabbe, E.C.W. (2017). The formalization of a critical discussion. Argumentation, 31, 101–119.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krabbe, E. C. W., & Walton, D. (2011). Formal dialectical systems and their uses in the study of argumentation. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen, & A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics (pp. 245–263). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lavine, H. & Snyder, M. (1996). Cognitive Processing and the Functional Effect in Persuasion: The Mediating Role of Subjective Perceptions of Message Quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 32(6), 580–604.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Modgil, S., & Prakken, H. (2014). The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument and Computation, 5(1), 31–62.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Munch, J. M., & Swasy, J. L. (1988). Rhetorical question, summarization frequency, and argument strength effects on recall. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 69–76.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Oaksford, M., & Hahn, U. (2004). A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance. Canadian Journal for Experimental Psychology, 58, 75–85.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1, 93–124.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pfeifer, N. (2013). On argument strength. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Bayesian argumentation: The practical side of probability (pp. 185–193). Dordrecht: Springer.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11, 481–518.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive carpentry: A blueprint for how to build a person. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Quine, W. V. O. (1961). Two dogmas of empiricism. In From a logical point of view (pp. 20–46). Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Quine, W. V. O. (1992). Pursuit of truth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Selinger, M. (2014). Towards formal representation and evaluation of arguments. Argumentation, 28(3), 379–393.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Selinger, M. (2019). Towards defining the relation of attack. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. R. Mitchell, & J. H. M. Wagemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1064–1073). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Spohn, W. (2012). The Laws of Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Stiff, J. B. & Mongeau, P. A. (2016). Persuasive communication. New York: The Guilford Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Thomas, S. N. (1986). Practical reasoning in natural language. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. [First edition 1973.]
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tokarz, M. (2006). Argumentacja, perswazja, manipulacja [Argumentation, persuasion, manipulation]. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E.C.W., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. (2014). Formal dialectical approaches. In van Eemeren et al. (Eds.) Handbook of argumentation theory (ch. 6, pp. 301–372). Dordrecht: Springer.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
von Borgstede, C., Andersson, M., & Hansla, A. (2014). Value-congruent information processing: The role of issue involvement and argument strength. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 461–477.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Verheij, B. (1996). Two approaches to dialectical argumentation. Admissible sets and argumentation stages. Proceedings of the eighth Dutch conference on artificial intelligence (NAIC’96) (pp. 357–368).Utrecht: Utrecht University.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Vreeswijk, G. (1993). Studies in Defeasible Argumentation, [Doctoral dissertation, Free University Amsterdam].
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Vreeswijk, G. (1997). Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence, 90, 225–279.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Walton, D. (1984). Logical dialogue-games and fallacies. London: Lanham.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Walton, D. (2009). Objections, rebuttals and refutations. Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09, CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Walton, D. (2011). Modeling burden of proof in a modified Hamblin dialogue system. Informal Logic, 31, 279–304.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Walton, D. (2015). Profiles of dialogue: A method of argument fault diagnosis and repair. Argumentation & Advocacy, 52, 91–108.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Walton, D., & Gordon, T. F. (2015). Formalizing informal logic. Informal Logic, 35(4), 508–538.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Walton, D., & Krabbe, E.C.W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany: SUNY Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wieten, R, Bex, F.J., Prakken, H. & Renooij, S. (2019). Constructing Bayesian network graphs from labelled arguments. In: G. Kern-Isberner and Z. Ognjanovic (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (pp. 99–110) (Springer LNAI Vol. 11726). Cham: Springer.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Yanal, R. J. (1991). Dependent and independent reasons. Informal Logic, 13, 137–144.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zenker, F. (Ed.) (2013.) Bayesian argumentation: The practical side of probability. Dordrecht: Springer.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zenker, F. (2015). Denying the antecedent probabilized: a dialectical view. In: Eemeren, F.H. van, Garssen, B., Godden, D., and Mitchell, G. (eds). Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), July 2014 (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: Rozenberg.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zenker, F., Debowska-Kozlowska, K., Godden, D., Selinger, M., Wells, S. (2020). Five approaches to argument strength: probabilistic, dialectical, structural, empirical, and computational. In: Dutilh Novaes, C., Jansen, H., van Laar, J. A. & Verheij, B. (eds.). Reason to Dissent: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation, Vol. I (pp. 653–674) (Studies in Logic: Logic and Argumentation; Vol. 87). London: College Publications.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zhao. X., Strasser, A., Cappella, J. N., Lerman, C., & Fishbein, M. (2011). A measure of perceived argument strength: Reliability and validity. Communication Methods & Measures, 5, 48–75.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zhao, X., & Cappella, J. N. (2016). Perceived argument strength. In D. K. Kim & J. Dearing (eds.), Health Communication Research Measures (pp. 119–126). New York: Peter Lang.
]Search in Google Scholar
, 