Argument and argumentation pdf free download

Author : Catherine G. It includes readings on topics that matter to students, such as being seen as "the other" and student loan forgiveness, issues that students will want to engage with and debate. Comprehensive coverage of classic and contemporary approaches to argument includes Aristotelian, Toulmin, Rogerian, and a range of alternative views, such as analyzing and writing about visual arguments.

For today's ever-increasingly visual learners who are challenged to separate what's real from what's not, new activities and visual flowcharts support information literacy. Newly annotated readings highlight important rhetorical moves. And new readings explore controversial issues such as mass incarceration, cultural appropriation, and the way computer algorithms make biased decisions.

Author : Edward S. Used or rental books If you rent or purchase a used book with an access code, the access code may have been redeemed previously and you may have to purchase a new access code.

Access codes Access codes that are purchased from sellers other than Pearson carry a higher risk of being either the wrong ISBN or a previously redeemed code. Check with the seller prior to purchase. The authors stress the importance of argumentation in everyday life while building student competence and critical awareness.

Through exercises and examples, students learn to create arguments and develop, understand, and interpret extended cases. Research and writing tools, including access to academic journals, help students understand critical thinking in even greater depth.

To provide students with flexibility, students can download the eText to a tablet using the free Pearson eText app. In seven new chapters he updates his thinking in the light of subsequent scholarship. Collectively, the papers articulate a distinctive position in the philosophy of argumentation. Author : Jerome E. Bickenbach Publisher: Broadview Press ISBN: Category: Philosophy Page: View: Read Now » This text introduces university students to the philosophical ethos of critical thinking, as well as to the essential skills required to practice it.

The authors believe that Critical Thinking should engage students with issues of broader philosophical interest while they develop their skills in reasoning and argumentation. Unlike many other texts in this area, then, Good Reasons for Better Arguments helps to explain both why argument is important and how the social role of argument plays an important part in determining what counts as a good argument. If this text is distinctive in the extent to which it deals with the theory and the values of critical thinking, it is also noteworthy for the thorough grounding it provides in the skills of deductive and inductive reasoning; the authors present the reader with useful tools for the interpretation, evaluation and construction of arguments.

A particular feature is the inclusion of a wide range of exercises, rich with examples that illuminate the practice of argument for the student. Many of the exercises are self testing, with answers provided at the back of the text; others are appropriate for in-class discussion and assignments.

As showed in Proposition 3. Therefore, implicitly, a strict derivation will be preferred over other arguments that use defeasible rules. Many comparison criteria could be defined. The priority based criterion defined below is but one example. Simari 1. For example, considering first generalized specificity, and if no argument is preferred, then use the existing priorities.

Namely, if the counter-argument hA2 , h2 i is better than hA1 , h1 i w. If neither argument is better, nor worse, than the other, a blocking situation occurs, and we will say that hA2 , h2 i is a blocking defeater for hA1 , h1 i. If hA1 , h1 i is better than hA2 , h2 i, then hA2 , h2 i will not be considered as a defeater for hA1 , h1 i. Although a preference criterion is required for comparing arguments, the notion of defeating argument can be formulated independently of the particular argument- discriminating criterion that is being used.

Definition 4. Observe that in the previous definition, the argument structure hA1 , h1 i is com- pared with the disagreement subargument hA, hi. Observe that hA3 , h3 i is a proper defeater for hA1 , h1 i. Example 4. Consider the de. From P 2. The argument hA2 , h2 i is a blocking defeater for hA1 , h1 i, and vice versa. Thus, a defeater for an argument structure can be identified as proper or blocking. As we will show below, this distinction will be considered by the warrant procedure.

It is interesting to note, that most argumentation formalisms make no distinction between proper or blocking defeaters, and some of them only consider proper de- featers. The following proposition shows that during the argumentation process it is not possible to attack a subargument hA, hi with an argument hA1 , h1 i that is equi-specific to hA, hi.

Proposition 4. Proof: Proposition 3. Thus, hA1 , h1 i cannot be a counter-argument for hA2 , h2 i at h. In order to establish whether an argument structure hA0 , h0 i is non-defeated, all defeaters for hA0 , h0 i have to be considered. Suppose that hA1 , h1 i is a defeater for hA0 , h0 i, since hA1 , h1 i is an argument structure, then defeaters for hA1 , h1 i may exist, and so on. In this manner, a sequence of argument structures is created, where each element of the sequence defeats its predecessor.

We formalize this notion next. Simari Definition 4. Argumentation line As defined above, an argumentation line could result in an infinite sequence of arguments. However, in the following section we will impose some restrictions over the argumentation lines and only finite sequences will be allowed.

Then, hA0 , h0 i becomes a supporting argument for h0 , hA1 , h1 i an interfering argument, hA2 , h2 i a supporting argument, hA3 , h3 i an in- terfering one, and so on. Given an argument structure hA0 , h0 i, there can be many defeaters for hA0 , h0 i, and each of them will generate a different argumentation line.

Observe also, that in these argumentation lines any of the arguments could have more than one defeater generating more argumentation lines starting with hA0 , h0 i. Up to this point there are two argumentation lines. Be- fore defining such a process, we will introduce some restrictions over argumentation lines. We will then impose certain constraints over the argumentation lines in order to avoid these problematic situations.

Some of these situations were reported first in Simari et al. If hA, hi is a self-defeating argument structure then an argumentation line starting with hA, hi will be infinite see Figure 4. Infinite argumentation line with a self defeating argument Many approaches of defeasible argumentation have to deal with self-defeating arguments. As stated next, arguments in DeLP will never be self-defeating. This happens when a pair of arguments defeat each other. Reciprocal defeaters Example 4.

Clearly, this situation is undesirable as it leads to the construction of an infi- nite sequence of arguments. Therefore, reciprocal defeaters must be detected and avoided. A circular argumentation is obtained when an argument structure is reintroduced again in an argumentation line to defend itself.

Figure 6 shows an example of circular argumentation. There, the same argument A is reintroduced down the line as a supporting argument for itself leading to an infinite argumentation line. Circular argumentation was discussed first in Simari et al.

Circular argumentation In order to avoid circular argumentation we need to impose the condition that no argument can be reintroduced in the same argumentation line. However, a more subtle case of circular argumentation happens with the reintroduction of a subar- gument. Figure 7 shows this situation: argument B is a defeater for A, and W is the disagreement sub-argument.

Later in the line, argument W could be reintroduced as a defeater, allowing the reintroduction of B. Although the cycle can be detected and broken when B is reintroduced, the fallacious situation is the reintroduction of a subargument that was defeated earlier in the line. Circular argumentation with a sub-argument A different, but also undesirable, situation is shown in Figure 8. There, the same argument A becomes both a supporting and an interfering argument of itself.

Clearly, there should be agreement among supporting arguments respectively interfering in any argumentation line. This is expressed formally with the notion of argument concordance as proposed in Simari et al. Contradictory argumentation line In the case shown in Figure 8, the cycle could be detected and broken disallowing the reintroduction of argument A.

However, the fallacious move is the use of argu- ment C that makes the set of supporting arguments non-concordant. Observe that the status of the first argument of the line will change depending on which criterion we use: on one hand, if we allow the use of C, and just forbid the reintroduction of A, the first argument in the line would not be defeated; on the other hand, if C is forbidden, the first argument of the line will be defeated.

Therefore, we will establish the condition that the set of supporting arguments of an argumentation line must be concordant, and the same must hold for the set of interfering arguments. Thus, the introduction of argument C in the example of Figure 8 will not be allowed. A different ill-formed situation corresponds to the use of a blocking defeater to defeat a blocking defeater.

Consider the following de. The following argumentation line may be obtained: [A1 , A2 , A3 ]. Observe that although A2 is a defeater for A3 , A2 is not introduced again because it was already used in the line. However, a blocking argument A3 is being used for defeating a blocking defeater A2 , but A2 was already blocked by A1. In DeLP, the undesirable situations mentioned above are avoided by requiring all argumentation lines to be acceptable as defined next.

It is interesting to note that changes in the definition of acceptable argumentation line may produce a different behavior of the formalism. Thus, this definition could be used as a way of tuning the system to obtain different results. In order to establish whether hA, hi is non-defeated, the set of defeaters for A will be considered. Since each defeater D for A is itself an argument structure, defeaters for D will in turn be considered, and so on. Therefore, as stated in Example 4.

Definition 5. A dialectical tree for hA0 , h0 i, denoted ThA0 , h0 i , is defined as follows: 1. The root of the tree is labeled with hA0 , h0 i. We decide to adopt the term warrant in order to unify the terminology with other approaches. Defeasible Logic Programming An Argumentative Approach 23 In a dialectical tree every node except the root represents a defeater proper or blocking of its parent, and leaves correspond to non-defeated arguments.

Each path from the root to a leaf corresponds to one different acceptable argumentation line. As we will show in Example 5. We call this tree dialectical because it represents an exhaustive dialectical analysis for the argument in its root. Dialectical tree for Example 5.

The first two are proper defeaters and the last one is a blocking defeater. Thus, one of the lines is split in two argumentation lines. The dialectical tree for hA, ai is shown in Figure 9. Simari Observation 5. Suppose we build an acceptable argumentation line where a defeater hA, hi will not be included because it would make the line unacceptable. There might be a subsequence of the mentioned line where the same defeater could be included, as the following example shows. Example 5.

Marked dialectical tree for Example 5. Let hB, qi be an inner node of ThA, hi. Defeasible Logic Programming An Argumentative Approach 25 This procedure suggests a bottom-up marking process, through which we are able to determine the marking of the root of a dialectical tree.

Figure 10 shows the dialectical tree of Figure 9 after applying the marking procedure. The notion of warrant will be defined in terms of a marked dialectical tree as follows. We will say that A is a warrant for h. Proposition 5. P, then, q is warranted. Proof: By Observation 3. By Proposition 3. See Section 8 for further discussion on the related approaches.

It is interesting to note that the notions of acceptable argumentation line and the dialectical tree provide a flexible structure for defining different argumentation protocols when considering different strategies for accepting defeaters during argu- mentation. This is an advantage over other formalisms where changing the protocol means changing the whole system.

Simari Example 5. Considering the program P 2. In the case of example P 2. Therefore, A1 is a warrant for has a gun nixon. We will introduce in this section a procedure for deciding whether a given literal is warranted. This procedure will not explore, in general, the whole dialectical tree, and answers will therefore be computed in a more efficient way. Given a program P, there could be several argument structures hA1 , hi,.

However, the warrant procedure will not construct all the possible argument structures for h; it will consider each one of them in turn, exploring the associated dialectical tree.

Note also that during the marking of the dialectical tree, some nodes are not contributing to the decision procedure the marking , i. Figure 11 left shows a marked dialectical tree for argument structure hA, ai of Example 5. Marked Dialectical tree for example 5. If A1 for q is found, then the warrant procedure will try to build a defeater A2 for some counter-argument point in A1 see the example below.

If such defeater exists, it will try to build a defeater A3 for A2 , and so on, building in this form an argumentation line. Thus, a dialectical tree will be generated in depth-first manner, considering from left to right every acceptable argumentation line. In a dialectical tree there are as many argumentation lines as leaves in the tree, and each of them could finish in a supporting or an interfering argument.

Exam- ple 5. However, the warrant process cannot finish there because there could be more defeaters to consider. Therefore, the process will continue expanding other argumentation lines. Therefore, the tree can be pruned at that point without considering further defeaters for A4.

However, the previous analysis does not apply to A3 , because if an undefeated defeater is found for it, the mark of A3 could change.

Argumentation lines of Example 5. Again, pruning could be effected, because although there could be more defeaters for A3 , they cannot modify its status. However, there might be another defeater A3 0 for A2 , creating, in that case, a new argumentation line. Figure 13 shows a Prolog-like specification of the top level of the warrant pro- cedure with pruning. That is, a query Q will be warranted if an argument A for Q is found, and A is not defeated. We will discuss here briefly how to extend DeLP for using default negation.

A more detailed paper with the definition of extended DeLP, and a comparison with other approaches is in preparation.

When DeLP is extended to consider default negation, some characteristics of the formalism just described are affected. For a correct treatment of default negation in DeLP, further considerations will be required. Default negation will be allowed only preceding literals in the body of defea- sible rules, e. The reason not allowing default negation in strict rules is twofold.

The definition of argument structure is also extended in order to avoid the in- troduction of self-defeating arguments, shown in the following example.

From any de. However, an argument structure like hA, ai would be a new kind of self-defeating argument that we would like to avoid.

Definition 6. A is minimal: there is no proper subset A0 of A such that A0 satisfies condi- tions 1 and 3. In extended DeLP, default negated literals will be another point of attack in an argument. In his work, Dung defines a notion of ground attack: an argument A0 for l , is a ground attack for A, if A contains a default negated literal not l. The notion of defeater will be extended considering this new kind of attack. Simari With this new definition of defeater, default negated literals become new points of attack.

Thus, when the dialectical analysis is carried out, default negated literals could be defeated by arguments. We claim that both negations are needed for representing knowledge in a natural manner.

However, some approaches in the literature Kakas et al. Here follows some proposed transformations and counterexamples show- ing why they fail. Hence, when s is not derivable, the rule r2 cannot be used, and there is a derivation for p. On the other hand when s is derivable, rule r2 blocks r1. This new derivable literal may cause unexpected results, as shown in Example 6. P with default negation, and the program P 0 obtained with the transformation cited above.

Example 6. Further comments on the transformation cited above were reported in Xianchang Wang, We refer the interested reader to Xianchang Wang, for the details of the transformation. Here follows an example of a de. P and its transformation P 0. Extending DeLP to consider presumptions is straightforward. We will show that only slight modifications need to be made in the formalism.

An extended defeasible logic program will be a set of facts, strict rules, defeasible rules and presumptions. The definition of defeasible derivation is the only one that has to be extended in order to consider presumptions. In Definition 2. One major difference with respect to a regular de. Given an extended de.

For example, from the de. Thus, argument structures could be based on facts, on presumptions, or both. Since presumptions are a special case of defeasible rules, the notion of argument structure remains intact. The definitions of disagreement, counter-argument, defeater, dialectical tree, and the warrant procedure are not affected by the inclusion of presumptions.

The comparison criterion could be affected. As the following example shows, the specificity criterion defined in this paper has some problems when the argument contains presumptions. Clearly, an argument based on facts should be preferible to one based on presumptions.

In this case Definition 3. However, in other cases, this definition does not behave correctly. Here, Definition 3. If the comparison criterion used is based on rules priorities, then the criterion has to find the way of preferring a fact over a presumption.

One simple way of solving the problems mentioned above is establishing that arguments based on facts will be preferable to arguments based on presumptions.

The extension of the comparison criteria to consider presumptions is currently under study. A prototype implementation of the jam as a virtual machine was also developed, and is subject of future research.

Applications that deal with incomplete and contradictory information can be easily modeled using DeLP programs. The defeasible argumentation basis of DeLP allows the building of applications for dynamic domains, where information may change.

Thus, Defeasible Logic Programming can be used for representing knowl- edge and for providing an inference engine in many applications. The application consists of several delibera- tive agents for monitoring the stock market and performing actions based on the retrieved information.

The agents reason using DeLP, and are capable of formu- lating arguments and counterarguments in order to decide whether to buy or sell some stock. Other applications are in progress. In both areas there have been developed several related approaches. We will comment first the differences with other Defeasible Reasoning formalisms and then with extentions of Logic Programming that are related with our work. The purpose of defeater rules is to account for the exceptions to defea- sible rules.

However, in Antoniou et al. DeLP does not need to be supplied with defeater rules. The system will find the counterarguments among the arguments it is able to build, and will decide on the defeat relation using a comparison criterion. Thus, in DeLP the programmer does not need to encode explicit exceptions. Log in with Facebook Log in with Google.

Remember me on this computer. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Need an account? Click here to sign up. Download Free PDF. Methods of Argumentation. Douglas Walton. A short summary of this paper. Methods of Argumentation Outline Argumentation, which can be abstractly defined as the interaction of different arguments for and against some conclusion, is an important skill to learn for everyday life, law, science, politics, and business.

The best way to learn it is to try it out on real instances of arguments found in everyday conversational exchanges and legal argumentation. The introductory chapter of this book gives a clear general idea of what the methods of argumentation are and how they work as tools that can be used to analyze arguments.

Each subsequent chapter then applies these methods to a leading problem of argumentation. Today the field of computing has embraced argumentation as a paradigm for research in artificial intelligence and multi-agent systems.

Another purpose of this book is to present and refine tools and techniques from computing as components of the methods that can be handily used by scholars in other fields. Logical Argumentation as a Distinctive Theory 2. The Methods and the Theory 3. Argumentation Schemes 4. Dialectical Structure 5. Rationale and Araucaria 6. An Example of Refutation 7. The ArguMed System 8. The Carneades Argumentation System 9. Conclusions Questions about Attack, Rebuttal, Objection and Refutation 2.

Abstract Argumentation Frameworks 3. Socratic Refutation Dialogues 4. Internal and External Refutation 5. Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions 6. Managing Critical Questions with Carneades 7. How Carneades Models Attacks and Rebuttals 8. How Carneades Models Relevance 9.