Persuasion in practical argument using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks

Citation: Trevor Bench-Capon (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation (RSS)
DOI (original publisher): 10.1093/logcom/13.3.429
Semantic Scholar (metadata): 10.1093/logcom/13.3.429
Sci-Hub (fulltext): 10.1093/logcom/13.3.429
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): Persuasion in practical argument using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks
Tagged: Computer Science (RSS) argumentation (RSS), argumentation frameworks (RSS), Value-based Argumentation Frameworks (RSS), persuasion (RSS)

Summary

In practical reasoning, preferences and values are important: two people can come to different, consistently logical opinions, based on a difference of values: "A key element in persuasion is identifying the value conflict at the root of the disagreement so that preference between values can explicitly inform the acceptance or rejection of the competing arguments."

This paper extends Dung's argumentation frameworks (AF) to address preference, creating Value-based Argumentation Frameworks (VAFs). It draws from Perelman's notion of audience: arguments are often addressed to particular audiences, where persuasive arguments are those aligned with the audience's values.

Definitions

Core Definition

A value-based argumentation framework (VAF) is defined as VAF = <AR, attacks, V, val, P>

where

AR = finite set of arguments

attacks = irreflexive binary relation on AR

V = a non-empty set of values (the set of all values related to arguments contained in AR)

val = function mapping from AR -> V

P = set of possible audiences

An argument A relates to a value v if accepting A promotes or defends v.

Audience-specific

TODO

Example

The paper also provides an example, based on Coleman & Christie's (a diabetic, Hal, whose insulin was lost due to accident, and who enters the home of Carla, another diabetic, in order to avoid a coma.) The question is whether this was justified, and whether compensation is appropriate.

This is analyzed both from values, and from values with factual information added.

Selected References

• G.C. Christie. The notion of an ideal audience in legal argument. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.

• J. Coleman. Risks and wrongs. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

• P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321-357, 1995

• P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon. Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence, 141, 1–2, 187–203, 2002.

• C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1969.

• C. Perelman. Justice, Law and argument. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1980.

Theoretical and Practical Relevance

This paper contains a useful 2.5 page summary of Dung, including referencing tractability results from Coherence in finite argument systems, and making observations regarding the simplifications available for acyclic graphs. The author observes that tractability is not an issue for VAFs "under conditions that normally hold"; one presumes that this is due to the small size of VAF systems encountered in practical situations, but this not clarified.

VAFs are relevant to online argumentation and have been used for the Parmenides project and IMPACT project