Abstract
This paper addresses the role that argumentation schemes and argument visualization software tools can play in helping to find and counter objections to a given argument one is confronted with. Based on extensive analysis of features of the argumentation in these two examples, a practical four-step method of finding objections to an argument is set out. The study also applies the Carneades Argumentation System to the task of finding objections to an argument, and shows how this system has some capabilities that are especially useful.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For this reason it is closely connected to another scheme called argument from negative consequences.
The graphical user interface of Carneades is being developed as an open source technology that is available as freeware from this site: http://carneades.github.com/.
Note here that, unlike the other Carneades diagrams in this paper, this diagram as the unusual feature that the same premise is used to support two different conclusions. Normally Carneades argument diagrams have a tree structure in which there are no circles, or other sequences of argumentation that are closed rather than branching only in one direction. This feature is allowed by Carneades, in instances like the one shown in Fig. 3, even though generally, Carneades argument diagrams take the form of a tree structure.
References
Ballnat, S., and T.F. Gordon. 2010. Goal selection in argumentation processes. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, ed. P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin and G.R. Simari, 51–62. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Buckingham Shum, S.J., A. MacLean, V.M.E. Bellotti, and N.V. Hammond. 1997. Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human–Computer Interaction 12(3): 267–300.
Gordon, T.F. 2005. A computational model of argument for legal reasoning support systems. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence and law, ed. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 53–64. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal.
Gordon, T.F. 2010. An overview of the Carneades argumentation support system. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation, ed. C. Reed and C.W. Tindale, 145–156. London: College.
Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2006. The Carneades argumentation framework: Using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, ed. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 195–207. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Gordon, T.F., H. Prakken, and D. Walton. 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171: 875–896.
Govier, T. 1999. Progress and regress on the dialectical tier. In The philosophy of argument, ed. J. Hoaglund, 223–240. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
Hitchcock, D., and B. Verheij. 2006. Arguing on the Toulmin model: New essays in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kalb, C. 2008. Drop that corn dog, doctor. Newsweek October 13: 17.
Kirschner, Paul A., Buckingham Shum, J. Simon, and Chad S. Carr (eds.). 2003. Visualizing argumentation. Berlin: Springer.
Krabbe, E.C.W. 2007. Nothing but objections! In Reason reclaimed, ed. H.V. Hansen and R.C. Pinto, 51–63. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
Reed, C., and D. Walton. 2005. Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11: 173–188.
Scheuer, O., F. Loll, N. Pinkwart, and B.M. McLaren. 2010. Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 5(1): 43–102.
Toulmin, S. 1964. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verheij, B. 2008. About the logical relations between cases and rules. Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference ed. E. Francesconi, G. Sartor and D. Tiscornia, 21–32. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Walton, D. 1992. Slippery slope arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walton, D. 1997. Actions and inconsistency: The closure problem of practical reasoning. In Contemporary action theory, vol. 1, ed. G. Holmstrom-Hintikka and R. Tuomela, 159–175. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Walton, D. 1998. Ad hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, D. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. 2008. Proleptic argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy 44: 143–154.
Walton, D. 2009. Objections, rebuttals and refutations. In Argument cultures: Proceedings of the 8th OSSA conference, ed. J. Ritola, 1–10. Windsor, ON: OSSA.
Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., and T. Gordon. 2012. The Carneades model of argument invention. Pragmatics and Cognition (to appear).
Walton, D., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the two anonymous referees who made helpful comments on this paper, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for providing support in the form of a Standard Research Grant. I would also like to thank Tom Gordon for advice that proved helpful for correcting some errors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Walton, D. Building a System for Finding Objections to an Argument. Argumentation 26, 369–391 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9261-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9261-z