Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and Participation.Frank Zenker, Jan Albert van Laar, B. Cepollaro, A. Gâţă, M. Hinton, C. G. King, B. Larson, M. Lewiński, C. Lumer, S. Oswald, M. Pichlak, B. D. Scott, M. Urbański & J. H. M. Wagemans - 2024 - Argumentation 38 (1):7-40.
    Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interactions that generate and justify reasonable public policies. Adopting an argumentation-theoretic perspective, we survey the norms that should govern public argumentation and address some of the complexities that scholarly treatments have identified. Our focus is on norms associated with the ideals of correctness and participation as sources of a politically legitimate deliberative outcome. In principle, both ideals are mutually coherent. If the information needed for a correct deliberative (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Epistemic Norms for Public Political Arguments.Christoph Lumer - 2024 - Argumentation 38 (1):63-83.
    The aim of the article is to develop precise epistemic rules for good public political arguments, by which political measures in the broad sense are justified. By means of a theory of deliberative democracy, it is substantiated that the justification of a political measure consists in showing argumentatively that this measure most promotes the common good or is morally optimal. It is then discussed which argumentation-theoretical approaches are suitable for providing epistemically sound rules for arguments for such theses and for (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Schemes, Critical Questions, and Complete Argument Evaluation.Shiyang Yu & Frank Zenker - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (4):469-498.
    According to the argument scheme approach, to evaluate a given scheme-saturating instance completely does entail asking all critical questions relevant to it. Although this is a central task for argumentation theorists, the field currently lacks a method for providing a complete argument evaluation. Approaching this task at the meta-level, we combine a logical with a substantive approach to the argument schemes by starting from Toulmin’s schema: ‘data, warrant, so claim’. For the yet more general schema: ‘premise; if premise, then conclusion; (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Using argumentation schemes to find motives and intentions of a rational agent.Douglas Walton - 2020 - Argument and Computation 10 (3):233-275.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Value of Methodological Deductivism in Argument Construction.Fábio Perin Shecaira - 2018 - Informal Logic 38 (4):471-501.
    “Deductivism” is a broad label for various theories that emphasize the importance of deductive argument in contexts of rational discussion. This paper makes a case for a very specific form of deductivism. The paper highlights the dialectical importance of advancing deductively valid arguments in natural-language reasoning. Sections 2 and 3 explain the various forms that deductivism has taken. Section 4 makes a case for a particular form of deductivism. Section 5 discusses the value of deductive argument in law. Section 6 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • An Epistemological Appraisal of Walton’s Argument Schemes.Christoph Lumer - 2022 - Informal Logic 43 (4):203-290.
    Abstract: The article presents and critically discusses Walton's (and Reed's and Macagno's) argument scheme approach to a theory of good argumentation. In particular, four characteristics of Walton's approach are presented: 1. It presents normative requirements for argumentation in the form of argument schemes, i.e. relatively concrete type descriptions. 2. These schemata are enthymematic, i.e. they omit some of the premises required by other approaches. 3. The actual argument schemes are usually supplemented by critical questions. 4. The method is inductive, bottom-up, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • On the graded acceptability of arguments in abstract and instantiated argumentation.Davide Grossi & Sanjay Modgil - 2019 - Artificial Intelligence 275 (C):138-173.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Argumentation schemes in AI and Law.Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon - 2021 - Argument and Computation 12 (3):417-434.
    In this paper we describe the impact that Walton’s conception of argumentation schemes had on AI and Law research. We will discuss developments in argumentation in AI and Law before Walton’s schemes became known in that community, and the issues that were current in that work. We will then show how Walton’s schemes provided a means of addressing all of those issues, and so supplied a unifying perspective from which to view argumentation in AI and Law.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Arguments of statutory interpretation and argumentation schemes.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2017 - International Journal of Legal Discourse 1 (21):47–83.
    In this paper it is shown how certain defeasible argumentation schemes can be used to represent the logical structure of the most common types of argument used for statutory interpretation both in civil and common law. The method is based on an argumentation structure in which the conclusion, namely, the meaning attributed to a legal source, is modeled as a claim that needs that is be supported by pro and con defeasible arguments. The defeasible nature of each scheme is shown (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Walton’s Argumentation Schemes.Lumer Christoph - unknown
    The contribution critically discusses Walton's argumentation scheme approach. On the one hand, its enormous richness and closeness to the empirical argumentation material is appreciated, but, on the other, fundamental conceptual weaknesses are revealed. Although the approach more recently has been declared to strive for “true beliefs and correct choices” it has not systematically developed the proposed schemes in a way that these goals are reached. Accordingly, many proposed schemes are fallacious from an epistemological standpoint.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation