Formalising an Aspect of Argument Strength: Degrees of Attackability

Q3 Arts and Humanities Comma Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.3233/FAIA220161
H. Prakken
{"title":"Formalising an Aspect of Argument Strength: Degrees of Attackability","authors":"H. Prakken","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":". This paper formally studies a notion of dialectical argument strength in terms of the number of ways in which an argument can be successfully attacked in expansions of an abstract argumentation framework. The proposed model is abstract but its design is motivated by the wish to avoid overly limiting assumptions that may not hold in particular dialogue contexts or in particular structured accounts of argumentation. It is shown that most principles for gradual argument acceptability proposed in the literature fail to hold for the proposed notion of dialectical strength, which clarifies their rational foundations and highlights the importance of distinguishing between logical, dialectical and rhetorical argument strength.","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"1 1","pages":"296-307"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

. This paper formally studies a notion of dialectical argument strength in terms of the number of ways in which an argument can be successfully attacked in expansions of an abstract argumentation framework. The proposed model is abstract but its design is motivated by the wish to avoid overly limiting assumptions that may not hold in particular dialogue contexts or in particular structured accounts of argumentation. It is shown that most principles for gradual argument acceptability proposed in the literature fail to hold for the proposed notion of dialectical strength, which clarifies their rational foundations and highlights the importance of distinguishing between logical, dialectical and rhetorical argument strength.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
形式化论证强度的一个方面:可攻击度
. 本文正式研究了辩证论证强度的概念,即在抽象论证框架的扩展中,论证可以成功攻击的方法的数量。所提出的模型是抽象的,但其设计的动机是希望避免过度限制的假设,这些假设可能不适用于特定的对话上下文或特定的结构化论证。研究表明,文献中提出的大多数渐进论证可接受性原则都不适用所提出的辩证强度概念,这阐明了它们的理性基础,并突出了区分逻辑论证强度、辩证论证强度和修辞论证强度的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Comma
Comma Arts and Humanities-Conservation
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Abstract Argumentation with Conditional Preferences No man is an island entire of itself: Legal frameworks and the relocation of a nation’s archive due to rising sea levels Sunspot observations and glacier images. Archival research partnerships focusing on modern climate research 气象档案在气象发展史中的角色转变及发展趋势 Redrawing historical weather data and participatory archives for the future
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1