Arguments from Fairness and Misplaced Priorities in Political Argumentation

نویسندگان

  • Douglas N. Walton
  • Hans V. Hansen
چکیده

Argumentation schemes are formal structures that are used to represent types of arguments that are prominent in natural language discourse. Recent research in argumentation studies has identified and investigated many of these schemes. The two types of arguments studied in this paper, found to be used during a pilot study of kinds of arguments used by the candidates in a recent Ontario provincial election, have not so far been formalized as schemes. We call them argument from fairness and argument from misplaced priorities. We formulate schemes for them, and analyze several examples of them from our corpus by means of constructing argument diagrams that fit the argument into the scheme.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

On Relating Voting Systems and Argumentation Frameworks

Abstract. In the modern world formal voting theories are becoming established and can be used to determine if a Voting System (VS) is fair or not in order to preserve democracy. The Argumentation Framework (AF) is based on the exchange and the evaluation of interacting arguments which may represent information of various kinds. We define a bijective mapping between the two theories and investig...

متن کامل

Generation and evaluation of different types of arguments in negotiation

Until now, AI argumentation-based systems have been mainly developed for handling inconsistency. In that explanation-oriented perspective, only one type of argument has been considered. Several argumentation frameworks have then been proposed for generating and evaluating such arguments. However, recent works on argumentation-based negotiation have emphasized different other types of arguments ...

متن کامل

Two-Agent Conflict Resolution with Assumption-Based Argumentation

Conflicts exist in multi-agent systems. Agents have different interests and desires. Agents also hold different beliefs and may make different assumptions. To resolve conflicts, agents need to better convey information between each other and facilitate fair negotiations that yield jointly agreeable outcomes. In this paper, we present a two-agent conflict resolution scheme developed under Assump...

متن کامل

Threat, reward and explanatory arguments: generation and evaluation

Current logic-based handling of arguments has mainly focused on explanation-oriented purposes in presence of inconsistency, so only one type of argument has been considered. Several argumentation frameworks have then been proposed for generating and evaluating such arguments. However, recent works on argumentation-based negotiation have emphasized different other types of arguments such as thre...

متن کامل

Integrating Dialectical and Accrual Modes of Argumentation

This paper argues that accrual should be modelled in terms of reasoning about the application of preferences to sets of arguments, and shows how such reasoning can be formalised within metalevel argumentation frameworks. These frameworks adopt the same machinery and level of abstraction as Dung’s argumentation framework. We thus provide a dialectical argumentation semantics that integrates accr...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2013