1. bookVolume 55 (2018): Issue 1 (September 2018)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2199-6059
ISSN
0860-150X
First Published
08 Aug 2013
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Towards a Model of Argument Strength for Bipolar Argumentation Graphs

Published Online: 06 Dec 2018
Page range: 31 - 62
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2199-6059
ISSN
0860-150X
First Published
08 Aug 2013
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Bipolar argument graphs represent the structure of complex pro and contra arguments for one or more standpoints. In this article, ampliative and exclusionary principles of evaluating argument strength in bipolar acyclic argumentation graphs are laid out and compared to each other. Argument chains, linked arguments, link attackers and supporters, and convergent arguments are discussed. The strength of conductive arguments is also addressed but it is argued that more work on this type of argument is needed to properly distinguish argument strength from more general value-based components of such arguments. The overall conclusion of the article is that there is no justifiably unique solution to the problem of argument strength outside of a particular epistemological framework.

Keywords

Adler, J. (2013). Are conductive arguments possible? Argumentation, 27(3): 245-257.10.1007/s10503-012-9286-3Search in Google Scholar

Besnard, P. and Hunter, A. (2008). Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.10.7551/mitpress/9780262026437.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Blair, A. J. and Johnson, R. H., editors (2011). Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning, London. College Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Bouyssou, D. and Pirlot, M. (2003). Ordinal aggregation and strict preferences for multi-attributed alternatives. Internal Report Cahier du LAMSADE 212, Université Paris Dauphine, Paris, France.Search in Google Scholar

Cayrol, C. and Lagasquie-Schiex, M. C. (2005). Gradual valuation in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In Godo, L., editor, Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, pages 366-377, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer.10.1007/11518655_32Search in Google Scholar

Cayrol, C. and Lagasquie-Schiex, M. C. (2009). Bipolar abstract argumentation systems. In Rahwan, I. and Simari, G. R., editors, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pages 65-84. Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_4Search in Google Scholar

Debreu, G. (1954). Representation of preference ordering by a numerical function. In Thrall, R., Coombs, C., and Davies, R., editors, Decision Processes, pages 159-175. Wiley, New York.Search in Google Scholar

Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (1988). Possibility Theory. Springer, New York.Search in Google Scholar

Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (2004). Possibilistic logic: A retrospective and prospective view. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 144:3-23.6010.1016/j.fss.2003.10.011Search in Google Scholar

Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (2005). A bipolar possibilistic representation of knowledge and preferences and its applications. In Isabelle Bloch, Alfredo Petrosino, A. T., editor, Fuzzy logic and applications: 6th international workshop, WILF 2005, Crema, Italy, September 15-17, 2005: revised selected papers, pages 1-10. Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (2009). Possibility theory. In Meyers, R. A., editor, Computational Complexity: Theory, Techniques, and Applications, pages 2240-2252. Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321-357.Search in Google Scholar

Eisenführ, F., Weber, M., and Langer, T. (2010). Rational Decision Making. Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-02851-9Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Fishburn, P. C. (1970). Utility Theory for Decision Making. John Wiley and Sons, New York, London, Sidney, Toronto.10.21236/AD0708563Search in Google Scholar

Freeman, J. B. (2011). Argument Structure. Springer, Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York.10.1007/978-94-007-0357-5Search in Google Scholar

Govier, T. (2013). A Practical Study of Argument. Wadsworth CENGAGE Learning, Boston, enhanced 7th edition edition.Search in Google Scholar

Hähnle, R. (2001). Advanced many-valued logics. In Gabbay, D. M. and Guenthner, F., editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 2, volume 2, pages 297-395. Springer.10.1007/978-94-017-0452-6_5Search in Google Scholar

Hitchcock, D. (1983). Critical Thinking: A Guide to Evaluating Information. Methuen, Toronto.Search in Google Scholar

Hitchcock, D. (2015). The linked-covergent distinction. In van Eemeren, F. H. and Garssen, B., editors, Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory, pages 83-91. Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_6Search in Google Scholar

Hitchcock, D. (1980). Deduction, induction and conduction. Informal Logic Newsletter, 3:7-15.Search in Google Scholar

Horty, J. F. (2012). Reasons as Defaults. Cambridge University Press, Oxford/New York.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199744077.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Josang, A. (2008). Conditional Reasoning with Subjective Logic. Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing, Vol. 15, No. 1, pages 5-38.Search in Google Scholar

Jin, R. (2011). The structure of pro and con arguments: A survey of the theories. In Blair, A., editor, Conductive Argument, pages 10-30. College Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Keeney, R. L. and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Search in Google Scholar

Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., and Tversky (1971, 1989, 1990). Foundations of Measurement, Volumes I-III. Academic Press, New York.10.1016/B978-0-12-425401-5.50011-8Search in Google Scholar

Kyburg, H. E., Jr., and Teng, C. M. (2001). Uncertain Inference. Cambridge UP.10.1017/CBO9780511612947Search in Google Scholar

Nielsen, S. and Parsons, S. (2006). An application of formal argumentation: Fusing Bayes nets in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pages 33-44, Amsterdam. IOS Press.Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, F. S. (1979). Measurement Theory. Adison Wesley, Reading, MA.Search in Google Scholar

Selinger, M. (2014). Towards formal representation and evaluation of arguments. Argumentation, 28:379-393.Search in Google Scholar

Snoeck Henkemans, F. A. (2000). State-of-the-art: The structure of argumentation. Argumentation, 14:447-473.Search in Google Scholar

Thomas, S. N. (1977). Practical Reasoning in Natural Language. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Search in Google Scholar

Tokarz, M. (2006). Argumentacja, perswazja, manipulacja [Argumentation, persuasion, manipulation]. Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne, Gdańsk.Search in Google Scholar

Walton, D. (1996). Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.10.3138/9781487574475Search in Google Scholar

Wellman, C. (1971). Challenge and Response: Justification in Ethics. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.Search in Google Scholar

Wellman, C. (1975). Morals and Ethics. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Search in Google Scholar

Yanal, R. J. (1991). Dependent and independent reasons. Informal Logic, XIII(3): 137-144.Search in Google Scholar

Yanal, R. J. (2003). Linked and convergent reasons - again. In Blair, A., Johnson, R. H., Hansen, H. V., and Tindale, C. W., editors, Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference, Vol. 5, pages 1- 7, Windsor, Canada. University of Windsor, University of Windsor.Search in Google Scholar

Zenker, F. (2011). Deduction, induction, conduction: An attempt at unifying natural language argument structures. In Blair, A. J. and Johnson, R. H., editors, Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning, pages 74-85. College Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo