Formal defeasible argumentation is currently the subject of active research. Formalisms of defeasible argumentation are characterized by a notion of defeasible argument. The influence of arguments on which conclusions can be drawn distinguishes formalisms of defeasible argumentation from nonmonotonic logics. This influence occurs for two reasons: by the structure of an argument, and by interact...

The purpose of this study is to examine the difference in effectiveness between two on-line scientific learning programs e one with an argumentation component and one without an argumentation component e on students' scientific argumentation ability and conceptual change. A quasi-experimental design was used in this study. Two classes of 8th grade students (the experimental group) received the ...

Assumption-based argumentation is a concrete but generalpurpose argumentation framework that has been shown, in particular, to generalise several existing mechanisms for non-monotonic reasoning, and is equipped with a computational counterpart and an implemented system. It can thus serve as a computational tool for argumentation-based reasoning, and for automatising the process of nding solutio...

In this article the author develops a framework for a pragma-dialectical reconstruction of teleological argumentation in a legal context. Ideas taken from legal theory are integrated in a pragma-dialectical model for analyzing and evaluating argumentation, thus providing a more systematic and elaborate framework for assessing the quality of teleological arguments in a legal context. Teleologica...

In this paper, we analyze and discuss approaches to argumentation mining from the discourse structure perspective. We chose persuasive essays and scientific articles as our example domains. By analyzing several example arguments and providing an overview of previous work on argumentation mining, we derive important tasks that are currently not addressed by existing argumentation mining systems,...

In the current paper we re-examine the three-step procedure with respect to argumentation for inference. It is observed that when viewing the argumentation process in a holistic way, one encounters several problems that tend to be overlooked when restricting oneself to pure abstract argumentation. We describe three such problems, which have to do with the interaction between abstract argumentat...

Argumentation can be viewed as a process of generating explanations. However, existing argumentation semantics are developed for identifying acceptable arguments within a set, rather than giving concrete justifications for them. In this work, we propose a new argumentation semantics, related admissibility, designed for giving explanations to arguments in both Abstract Argumentation and Assumpti...

In this paper we introduce a logic of abstract argumentation capturing Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation, based on connectives for attack and defend. We extend it to a modal logic of abstract argumentation to generalize Dung’s theory and define variants of it. Moreover, we use the logic to relate Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation to more traditional conditional and comparative forma...

The paper develops a formal theory of the degree of justification of arguments, which relies solely on the structure of an argumentation framework. The theory is based on a generalisation of Dung’s notion of acceptability, making it sensitive to the numbers of attacks and counter-attacks on arguments. Graded generalisations of argumentation semantics are then obtained and studied. The theory is...

In classical abstract argumentation, arguments interact with each other through a single abstract notion of attack. However, several concrete forms of argument conflict are present in the literature, all of them of different nature and strength for a particular context. In this work we define an argumentation framework equipped with a set of abstract attack relations of varied strength. Using t...