„Als Christ, als Theologe, als Geschichtsschreiber, als Bürger kann ich diese Lehre nicht annehmen.“ Altkatholische Argumentation gegen die Dogmen des Ersten Vatikanischen Konzils

Als sich der altkatholische Protest gegen die Dogmen des Ersten Vatikanischen Konzils von 1870 formierte, brachten die Altkatholiken ganz unterschiedliche Argumente vor: Zum Teil argumentierten sie juristisch, dem Konzil habe die nötige Freiheit in Diskussion und Entscheidung gefehlt; sie griffen die Stringenz der Schrift- und Traditionsargumente der Befürwortre der Dogmen an und versuchten zu zeiten, dass Schrift und Tradition eher eine gegenteilige Ansicht favorisieren würden; aber sie argumentierten auch politisch. Der Vortrag zeichnet diese unterschiedlichen Argumentationslinien nach.

Zur Argumentation der Poale-Zion

Adolf Böhm

Normative Practical Reasoning via Argumentation and Dialogue

Postprint

Argumentation schemes for policy-driven planning

Postprint

Argumentation strategies for plan resourcing

Postprint

Modeling naturalistic argumentation in research literatures:representation and interaction design issues

This article characterizes key weaknesses in the ability of current digital libraries to support scholarly inquiry, and as a way to address these, proposes computational services grounded in semiformal models of the naturalistic argumentation commonly found in research literatures. It is argued that a design priority is to balance formal expressiveness with usability, making it critical to coevolve the modeling scheme with appropriate user interfaces for argument construction and analysis. We specify the requirements for an argument modeling scheme for use by untrained researchers and describe the resulting ontology, contrasting it with other domain modeling and semantic web approaches, before discussing passive and intelligent user interfaces designed to support analysts in the construction, navigation, and analysis of scholarly argument structures in a Web-based environment. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Int Syst 22: 17–47, 2007.

On the Equivalence between Assumption-Based Argumentation and Logic Programming

Postprint

The dangers of theorizing before analysis : four case studies about argumentation and cognition

International audience

Distance, evidentiality and counter-argumentation: Concessive future in Spanish

The aim of this paper is to examine the connection between Spanish concessive future and evidentiality. More specifically, it is argued that concessive future does not merely represent a contextual variant of conjectural future (Escandell, 2010) but a new use (Squartini, 2012) which is restricted by the activated status of the proposition ( Dryer, 1996). Unlike conjectural future, concessive future does not have an inferential purpose; instead, it plays a role within the (counter) argumentation process. It actually develops a déréalisant function ( Ducrot, 1995). Therefore, although conjectural use and concessive use share the deictic value of future, they are the projection of this value over different levels of meaning. More generally, this paper shows that future in Spanish may intersect with several semantic and discourse categories, including – but not limited to – evidentiality.

A study of the impact of persuasive argumentation in political debates

Persuasive communication is the process of shaping, reinforcing and changing others' responses. In political debates, speakers express their views towards the debated topics by choosing both the content of their discourse and the argumentation process. In this work we study the use of semantic frames for modelling argumentation in speakers' discourse. We investigate the impact of a speaker's argumentation style and their effect in influencing an audience in supporting their candidature. We model the influence index of each candidate based on their relative standings in the polls released prior to the debate and present a system which ranks speakers in terms of their relative influence using a combination of content and persuasive argumentation features. Our results show that although content alone is predictive of a speaker's influence rank, persuasive argumentation also affects such indices.

Distributed argumentation technology: advancing risk analysis and regulatory compliance of distributed ledger technologies for transaction and management of securities

Distributed argumentation technology is a computational approach incorporating argumentation reasoning mechanisms within multi-agent systems. For the formal foundations of distributed argumentation technology, in this thesis we conduct a principle-based analysis of structured argumentation as well as abstract multi-agent and abstract bipolar argumentation. The results of the principle-based approach of these theories provide an overview and guideline for further applications of the theories. Moreover, in this thesis we explore distributed argumentation technology using distributed ledgers. We envision an Intelligent Human-input-based Blockchain Oracle (IHiBO), an artificial intelligence tool for storing argumentation reasoning. We propose a decentralized and secure architecture for conducting decision-making, addressing key concerns of trust, transparency, and immutability. We model fund management with agent argumentation in IHiBO and analyze its compliance with European fund management legal frameworks. We illustrate how bipolar argumentation balances pros and cons in legal reasoning in a legal divorce case, and how the strength of arguments in natural language can be represented in structured arguments. Finally, we discuss how distributed argumentation technology can be used to advance risk management, regulatory compliance of distributed ledgers for financial securities, and dialogue techniques.