•  26
    This book shows how research in linguistic pragmatics, philosophy of language, and rhetoric can be connected through argumentation to analyze a recognizably common strategy used in political and everyday conversation, namely the distortion of another’s words in an argumentative exchange. Straw man argumentation refers to the modification of a position by misquoting, misreporting or wrenching the original speaker’s statements from their context in order to attack them more easily or more effectiv…Read more
  •  3
    Annotating Argument Schemes
    with Jacky Visser, John Lawrence, Chris Reed, and Jean Wagemans
    Argumentation 1-39. forthcoming.
    Argument schemes are abstractions substantiating the inferential connection between premise and conclusion in argumentative communication. Identifying such conventional patterns of reasoning is essential to the interpretation and evaluation of argumentation. Whether studying argumentation from a theory-driven or data-driven perspective, insight into the actual use of argumentation in communicative practice is essential. Large and reliably annotated corpora of argumentative discourse to quantitat…Read more
  •  4
    Multimorbidity, the presence of multiple health conditions that must be addressed, is a particularly difficult situation in patient management raising issues such as the use of multiple drugs and drug-disease interactions. Clinical Guidelines are evidence-based statements which provide recommendations for specific health conditions but are unfit for the management of multiple co-occurring health situations. To leverage these evidence-based documents, it becomes necessary to combine them. In this…Read more
  •  349
    A theory of presumption for everyday argumentation
    Pragmatics and Cognition 15 (2): 313-346. 2007.
    The paper considers contemporary models of presumption in terms of their ability to contribute to a working theory of presumption for argumentation. Beginning with the Whatelian model, we consider its contemporary developments and alternatives, as proposed by Sidgwick, Kauffeld, Cronkhite, Rescher, Walton, Freeman, Ullmann-Margalit, and Hansen. Based on these accounts, we present a picture of presumptions characterized by their nature, function, foundation and force. On our account, presumption …Read more
  •  8
    Profiles of Dialogue for Amphiboly
    Informal Logic 40 (1): 3-45. 2020.
    Amphiboly has been widely recognized, starting from the time of Aristotle, as an informal fallacy arising from grammatical ambiguity. This paper applies the profiles of dialogue tool to the fallacy of amphiboly, providing a five-step evidence-based procedure whereby a syntactically ambiguous sentence uttered in a natural language text can be evaluated as committing a fallacy of amphiboly. A user applies the tool to a natural language text by comparing a descriptive graph, representing how the ar…Read more
  •  3
    Epistemic and deontic authority in the argumentum ad verecundiam
    Pragmatics and Society 10 (2): 287-315. 2019.
    The aim of this paper is to elaborate tools that would allow us to analyse arguments from authority and guard against fallacious uses of them. To accomplish this aim, we extend the list of existing argumentation schemes representing arguments from authority. For this purpose, we formulate a new argumentation scheme for argument from deontic authority along with a matching set of critical questions used to evaluate it. We argue that clarifying the ambiguity between arguments from epistemic and de…Read more
  • Combining explanation and argumentation in dialogue
    with Floris Bex
    Argument and Computation 7 (1): 55-68. 2016.
  •  6
    Emotive Meaning in Political Argumentation
    Informal Logic 39 (3): 229-261. 2019.
    Donald Trump’s speeches and messages are characterized by terms that are commonly referred to as “thick” or “emotive,” meaning that they are characterized by a tendency to be used to generate emotive reactions. This paper investigates how emotive meaning is related to emotions, and how it is generated or manipulated. Emotive meaning is analyzed as an evaluative conclusion that results from inferences triggered by the use of a term, which can be represented and assessed using argumentation scheme…Read more
  • Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation (edited book)
    with Giorgio Bongiovanni, Gerald Postema, Antonino Rotolo, Giovanni Sartor, and Chiara Valentini
    Springer. 2018.
  •  23
    A classification system for argumentation schemes
    Argument and Computation 6 (3): 219-245. 2016.
    This paper explains the importance of classifying argumentation schemes, and outlines how schemes are being used in current research in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics on argument mining. It provides a survey of the literature on scheme classification. What are so far generally taken to represent a set of the most widely useful defeasible argumentation schemes are surveyed and explained systematically, including some that are difficult to classify. A new classification syst…Read more
  •  11
    Why Is the 'ad Populum' a Fallacy?
    Philosophy and Rhetoric 13 (4). 1980.
  •  15
    When expert opinion evidence goes wrong
    Artificial Intelligence and Law 27 (4): 369-401. 2019.
    This paper combines three computational argumentation systems to model the sequence of argumentation in a famous murder trial and the appeal procedure that followed. The paper shows how the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion can be built into a testing procedure whereby an argument graph is used to interpret, analyze and evaluate evidence-based natural language argumentation of the kind found in a trial. It is shown how a computational argumentation system can do this by combi…Read more
  •  11
    Witness Impeachment in Cross-Examination Using Ad Hominem Argumentation
    Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1): 93-114. 2018.
    This paper combines methods of argumentation theory and artificial intelligence to extend existing work on the dialectical structure of crossexamination. The existing method used conflict diagrams to search for inconsistent statements in the testimony of a witness. This paper extends the method by using the inconsistency of commitments to draw an inference by the ad hominem argumentation scheme to the conclusion that the testimony is unreliable because of the bad ethical character for veracity o…Read more
  •  13
    Representing argumentation schemes with Constraint Handling Rules
    with Thomas F. Gordon and Horst Friedrich
    Argument and Computation 9 (2): 91-119. 2018.
    We present a high-level declarative programming language for representing argumentation schemes, where schemes represented in this language can be easily validated by domain experts, including developers of argumentation schemes in informal logic and philosophy, and serve as executable specifications for automatically constructing arguments, when applied to a set of assumptions. This new rule language for representing argumentation schemes is validated by using it to represent twenty representa…Read more
  •  7
    Towards a richer model of deliberation dialogue: Closure problem and change of circumstances
    with Alice Toniolo and Timothy J. Norman
    Argument and Computation 7 (2-3): 155-173. 2016.
  • Handbook in Legal Reasoning and Argumentation (edited book)
    with G. Bongiovanni, Don Postema, A. Rotolo, G. Sartor, and C. Valentini
    Springer. 2018.
  • Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argument
    Cambridge University Press. 2019.
    This is an introductory guidebook to the basic principles of how to construct good arguments and how to criticeze bad ones. It is non-technical in its approach and is based on 150 key examples, each discussed and evaluated in clear, illustrative detail. Professor Walton, a leading authority in the field of informal logic, explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound strategies for reasoned persuasion and critic…Read more
  •  7
    Analogical Arguments in Persuasive and Deliberative Contexts
    with Curtis Hyra
    Informal Logic 38 (2): 213-262. 2018.
    This paper uses argumentation tools such as argument diagrams and argumentation schemes to analyze four examples of argument from analogy, and argues that to proceed from there to evaluating these arguments, features of the context of dialogue need to be taken into account. The evidence drawn from these examples is taken to support a pragmatic approach to studying argument from analogy, meaning that identifying the logical form of the argument by building an argument diagram of the premises and …Read more
  •  15
    In this paper it is shown how plausible reasoning of the kind illustrated in the ancient Greek example of the weak and strong man can be analyzed and evaluated using a procedure in which the pro evidence is weighed against the con evidence using formal, computational argumentation tools. It is shown by means of this famous example how plausible reasoning is based on an audience’s recognition of situations of a type they are familiar with as normal and comprehensible in their shared common knowle…Read more
  •  8
    Classification and Ambiguity: the Role of Definition in a Conceptual System
    Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 16 (29). 2009.
  •  6
    How to Refute an Argument Using Artifical Intelligence
    Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 23 (36). 2011.
  •  20
    Practical Reasoning Arguments: A Modular Approach
    Argumentation 32 (4): 519-547. 2018.
    This paper compares current ways of modeling the inferential structure of practical reasoning arguments, and proposes a new approach in which it is regarded in a modular way. Practical reasoning is not simply seen as reasoning from a goal and a means to an action using the basic argumentation scheme. Instead, it is conceived as a complex structure of classificatory, evaluative, and practical inferences, which is formalized as a cluster of three types of distinct and interlocked argumentation sch…Read more
  •  12
    In this paper we show that an essential aspect of solving the problem of uncritical acceptance of expert opinions that is at the root of the ad verecundiam fallacy is the need to disentangle argument from expert opinion from another kind of appeal to authority. Formal and computational argumentation systems enable us to analyze the fault in which an error has occurred by virtue of a failure to meet one or more of the requirements of the argumentation scheme from argument from expert opinion. We …Read more
  •  18
    An arugmentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpertation
    with Giovanni Sartor and Fabrizio Macagno
    Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (1): 51-91. 2016.
    This paper proposes an argumentation-based procedure for legal interpretation, by reinterpreting the traditional canons of textual interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes, which are then classified, formalized, and represented through argument visualization and evaluation tools. The problem of statutory interpretation is framed as one of weighing contested interpretations as pro and con arguments. The paper builds an interpretation procedure by formulating a set of argumentation schemes…Read more
  • Question-Reply Argumentation
    Philosophy and Rhetoric 25 (1): 79-82. 1992.
  • Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation
    Philosophy and Rhetoric 28 (2): 171-175. 1995.
  • Informal Logic, a Handbook for Critical Argumentation
    Philosophy and Rhetoric 26 (1): 48-52. 1993.