Fundamentals of critical argumentation

By Douglas Walton. Critical reasoning and argumentation, 2006

484 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Law

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial (2014, background): “ASPIC+ Design choices and Overview People argue to remove doubt about a claim (Walton 2006, p. 1), by giving reasons why one should accept the claim and by defending these reasons against criticism.”
Argumentation Mining on the Web from Information Seeking Perspective (2014, background): “In examining real-world political argumentation from (Walton, 2005), Walton (2012) found out that 37.”
A Dialogical Approach to the Creation of New Knowledge in Organizations (2009, background): “The typical pattern in a dialogue is that of turn-taking, in which partners alternate between the roles of speakers and listeners (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004, pp. 62–68; Walton 2006, p. 8).”
The Effect of Authority on the Persuasiveness of Mathematical Arguments (2009, background): “Walton (2006), in a survey of various types of defeasible argumentation, explicated the appeal to expert opinion (or argumentum ad verecundian) by laying out its argumentation scheme:”
Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse (2016, background): “In examining real-world political argumentation from Walton (2005), Walton (2012) found that 37.1% of the arguments collected did not fit any of the 14 schemes he had chosen so he created new schemes ad hoc.”