A classification system for argumentation schemes

References

• Ashley, K. (2006). Case-based reasoning. In A. R. Lodder & A. Oskamp (Eds.), Information technology and lawyers (pp. 26–60). Amsterdam: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, K., & Bench-Capon, T. (2007). Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 855–874. 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.009. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & McBurney, P. (2005). Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. In G. Sartor (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (pp. 35–44). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Bench-Capon, T. (2003). Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 429–448. doi:10.1093/logcom/13.3.429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bench-Capon, T., & Prakken, H. (2010). Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18, 153–174. doi:10.1007/s10506-010-9094-8.
   Google Scholar
• Bex, F., & Reed, C. (2011). Schemes of inference, conflict, and preference in a computational model of argument. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 23, 39–58.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, K. L. (1978). Negation as failure. In H. Gallaire & ‎J. Minker (Eds.), Logic and data bases (pp. 293–322). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291. doi:10.3102/0091732X07309371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng, V. W., & Hirst, G. (2011). Classifying arguments by scheme. Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies-volume 1 (pp. 987–996). Portland (Oregon): Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, T. F., & Walton D. (2009a). Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In C. D. Hafner (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (pp. 137–146). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, T. F., & Walton, D. (2009b). Proof burdens and standards. In I. Rahwan & G. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. 239–258). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Govier, T. (1992). A practical study of argument. Belmont: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood, K., Bench-Capon, T., & McBurney, P. (2003). Towards a computational account of persuasion in law. In G. Sartor (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (pp. 22–31). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Grennan, W. (1997). Informal logic. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guarini, M. (2004). A defense of non-deductive reconstructions of analogical arguments. Informal Logic, 24, 153–168.
   Google Scholar
• Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, H., & Walton, D. (2013). Argument kinds and argument roles in the Ontario provincial election. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2, 226–258. doi: 10.1075/jaic.2.2.03han
   Google Scholar
• Hastings, A. (1963). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation ( Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL).
   Google Scholar
• Juthe, A. (2005). Argument by analogy. Argumentation, 19, 1–27. doi:10.1007/s10503-005-2314-9.
   Google Scholar
• Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D. (2012, November 24–27). Argumentation as a tool to understand complexity of knowledge integration. Proceedings of the 2nd international STEM in education conference – Beijing, China (pp. 154–160). Beijing: Beijing Normal University.
   Google Scholar
• Lumer, C., & Dove, I. J. (2011). Argument schemes–an epistemological approach. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation: Cognition and community. Proceedings of the ninth international conference of the Ontario society for the study of argumentation (pp. 1–32). Windsor, ON: OSSA.
   Google Scholar
• Macagno, F. (2013). Strategies of character attack. Argumentation, 27, 369–401. 10.1007/s10503-013-9291-1. doi: 10.1007/s10503-013-9291-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macagno, F. (2014). Analogy and redefinition. In Systematic approaches to argument by analogy (pp. 73–89). Cham: Springer International.
   Google Scholar
• Macagno, F. (2015). A means-end classification of argumentation schemes. In F. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory (pp. 183–201). Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2009). Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 42, 154–182. doi: 10.1353/par.0.0034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2011). Reasoning from paradigms and negative evidence. Pragmatics & Cognition, 19: 92–116. doi: 10.1075/pc.19.1.04mac
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2014a). Emotive language in argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2014b). Argumentation schemes and topical relations. In G. Gobber & A. Rocci (Eds.), Language, reason and education (pp. 185–216). Bern: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2015). Classifying the patterns of natural arguments. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 48, 26–53. doi: 10.5325/philrhet.48.1.0026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macagno, F., Walton, D., & Tindale, C. (2014). Analogical reasoning and semantic rules of inference. Revue internationale de philosophie, 270: 419–432.
   Google Scholar
• Mochales, R., & Moens, M. F. (2011). Argumentation mining. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 19, 1–22. doi:10.1007/s10506-010-9104-x.
   Google Scholar
• Mochales Palau, R., & Moens, M. F. (2009). Argumentation mining: The detection, classification and structuring of arguments in text. Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (pp. 98–107). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1568234.1568246.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46, 84–106. 10.1080/00461520.2011.558816. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prakken, H. (2010). On the nature of argument schemes. In C. Reed & C. Tindale (Eds.), Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. An examination of Douglas Walton's theories of reasoning and argument (pp. 167–185). London: College.
   Google Scholar
• Rahwan, I., Banihashemi, B., Reed, C., Walton, D., & Abdallah, S. (2011). Representing and classifying arguments on the semantic web. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26: 487–511. doi: 10.1017/S0269888911000191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83, 483–520. doi:10.3102/0034654313487606.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2003). Applications of argumentation schemes. In H. Hansen, C. Tindale, A. Blair, & R. Johnson (Eds.), Argumentation and its applications: Proceedings of the 4th OSSA conference (pp. 1–12). Windsor, ON: OSSA.
   Google Scholar
• Reed, C., Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2007). Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 22, 87–109. doi:10.1017/S0269888907001051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13, 81–132. 10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe, G., Macagno, F., Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2006). Araucaria as a tool for diagramming arguments in teaching and studying philosophy. Teaching Philosophy, 29, 111–124. doi: 10.5840/teachphil200629217
   Google Scholar
• Sartor, G., Walton, D., Macagno, F., & Rotolo, A. (2014). Argumentation schemes for statutory interpretation: A logical analysis. In R. Hoekstra (Ed.), Legal knowledge and information systems: JURIX 2014: The twenty-seventh annual conference (pp. 11–20). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Verheij, B. (2001). Legal decision making as dialectical theory construction with argumentation schemes. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (pp. 225–226). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Verheij, B. (2008). About the logical relations between cases and rules. In E. Francesconi, G. Sartor, & D. Tiscornia (Eds.), Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2008: The twenty-first annual conference (pp. 21–32). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (1990). What is reasoning? What is an argument? The Journal of Philosophy, 87, 399–419. doi: 10.2307/2026735
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (1998). Ad hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (2002). Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (2005). Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence and law. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (2011). Argument mining by applying argumentation schemes. Studies in Logic, 4, 38–64.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (2012). Using argumentation schemes for argument extraction: A bottom-up method. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence, 6, 33–61. 10.4018/jcini.2012070103. doi: 10.4018/jcini.2012070103
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Warnick, B., & Kline, S. L. (1992). The new rhetoric's argument schemes: A rhetorical view of practical reasoning. Argumentation & Advocacy, 29, 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Westberg, D. (2002). Right practical reason: Aristotle, action, and prudence in Aquinas. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar