Towards a Model of Argument Strength for Bipolar Argumentation Graphs
By:
References
- Adler, J. (2013). Are conductive arguments possible? Argumentation, 27(3): 245-257.
- Besnard, P. and Hunter, A. (2008). Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
- Blair, A. J. and Johnson, R. H., editors (2011). Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning, London. College Publications.
- Bouyssou, D. and Pirlot, M. (2003). Ordinal aggregation and strict preferences for multi-attributed alternatives. Internal Report Cahier du LAMSADE 212, Université Paris Dauphine, Paris, France.
- Cayrol, C. and Lagasquie-Schiex, M. C. (2005). Gradual valuation in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In Godo, L., editor, Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, pages 366-377, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer.
- Cayrol, C. and Lagasquie-Schiex, M. C. (2009). Bipolar abstract argumentation systems. In Rahwan, I. and Simari, G. R., editors, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pages 65-84. Springer.
- Debreu, G. (1954). Representation of preference ordering by a numerical function. In Thrall, R., Coombs, C., and Davies, R., editors, Decision Processes, pages 159-175. Wiley, New York.
- Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (1988). Possibility Theory. Springer, New York.
- Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (2004). Possibilistic logic: A retrospective and prospective view. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 144:3-23.60
- Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (2005). A bipolar possibilistic representation of knowledge and preferences and its applications. In Isabelle Bloch, Alfredo Petrosino, A. T., editor, Fuzzy logic and applications: 6th international workshop, WILF 2005, Crema, Italy, September 15-17, 2005: revised selected papers, pages 1-10. Springer.
- Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (2009). Possibility theory. In Meyers, R. A., editor, Computational Complexity: Theory, Techniques, and Applications, pages 2240-2252. Springer.
- Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321-357.
- Eisenführ, F., Weber, M., and Langer, T. (2010). Rational Decision Making. Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-02851-9
- Fishburn, P. C. (1970). Utility Theory for Decision Making. John Wiley and Sons, New York, London, Sidney, Toronto.
- Freeman, J. B. (2011). Argument Structure. Springer, Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York.
- Govier, T. (2013). A Practical Study of Argument. Wadsworth CENGAGE Learning, Boston, enhanced 7th edition edition.
- Hähnle, R. (2001). Advanced many-valued logics. In Gabbay, D. M. and Guenthner, F., editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 2, volume 2, pages 297-395. Springer.
- Hitchcock, D. (1983). Critical Thinking: A Guide to Evaluating Information. Methuen, Toronto.
- Hitchcock, D. (2015). The linked-covergent distinction. In van Eemeren, F. H. and Garssen, B., editors, Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory, pages 83-91. Springer.
- Hitchcock, D. (1980). Deduction, induction and conduction. Informal Logic Newsletter, 3:7-15.
- Horty, J. F. (2012). Reasons as Defaults. Cambridge University Press, Oxford/New York.
- Josang, A. (2008). Conditional Reasoning with Subjective Logic. Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing, Vol. 15, No. 1, pages 5-38.
- Jin, R. (2011). The structure of pro and con arguments: A survey of the theories. In Blair, A., editor, Conductive Argument, pages 10-30. College Publications.
- Keeney, R. L. and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
- Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., and Tversky (1971, 1989, 1990). Foundations of Measurement, Volumes I-III. Academic Press, New York.
- Kyburg, H. E., Jr., and Teng, C. M. (2001). Uncertain Inference. Cambridge UP.
- Nielsen, S. and Parsons, S. (2006). An application of formal argumentation: Fusing Bayes nets in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pages 33-44, Amsterdam. IOS Press.
- Roberts, F. S. (1979). Measurement Theory. Adison Wesley, Reading, MA.
- Selinger, M. (2014). Towards formal representation and evaluation of arguments. Argumentation, 28:379-393.
- Snoeck Henkemans, F. A. (2000). State-of-the-art: The structure of argumentation. Argumentation, 14:447-473.
- Thomas, S. N. (1977). Practical Reasoning in Natural Language. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
- Tokarz, M. (2006). Argumentacja, perswazja, manipulacja [Argumentation, persuasion, manipulation]. Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne, Gdańsk.
- Walton, D. (1996). Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
- Wellman, C. (1971). Challenge and Response: Justification in Ethics. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.
- Wellman, C. (1975). Morals and Ethics. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
- Yanal, R. J. (1991). Dependent and independent reasons. Informal Logic, XIII(3): 137-144.
- Yanal, R. J. (2003). Linked and convergent reasons - again. In Blair, A., Johnson, R. H., Hansen, H. V., and Tindale, C. W., editors, Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference, Vol. 5, pages 1- 7, Windsor, Canada. University of Windsor, University of Windsor.
- Zenker, F. (2011). Deduction, induction, conduction: An attempt at unifying natural language argument structures. In Blair, A. J. and Johnson, R. H., editors, Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning, pages 74-85. College Publications.
Language: English
Page range: 31 - 62
Published on: Dec 6, 2018
Published by: University of Białystok, Department of Pedagogy and Psychology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 times per year
Keywords:
Related subjects:
© 2018 Erich Rast, published by University of Białystok, Department of Pedagogy and Psychology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.