This thesis presents a new platform called See the Reason, built upon a tree- structured argumentation model called the Counter/Assumption model. In the Counter/Assumption model, a topic is posted first, then under that topic, reasons for and against, and for each reason, counterarguments, and for any counterargu- ment, more counterarguments. The model enables us to systematically determine whether a claim is “tentatively true” or “tentatively false,” in an effort to motivate people to make their side’s claims tentatively true and the opposing side’s claims tentatively false, thus encouraging conflict. Research suggests that debates with more conflict are better, so this thesis investigates whether Counter/Assumption model encourages better debates. In this thesis, we have students debate on See the Reason and the closest existing platform, CreateDebate. We measure the number of uncaught bad ar- guments, the user satisfaction, and how far into the Interaction Analysis Model the debates progress. We find promising evidence that See the Reason progresses further into the IAM and encourages more logical debates, but sacrifices usability at the same time.

Dans cette thèse, nous étudions les techniques de raisonnement utilisant des graphes d'argumentation générés à partir de bases de connaissances inconsistantes exprimées dans le langage des règles existentielles.Les trois principaux résultats sont les suivants. Tout d'abord, nous étudions les propriétés structurelles des graphes obtenus à partir de bases de connaissances exprimées avec des règles existentielles et nous donnons plusieurs indications sur la manière dont leur génération peut être améliorée. Deuxièmement, nous proposons une technique pour générer un graphe d'argumentation où plusieurs arguments peuvent attaquer collectivement, remplaçant ainsi la relation d'attaque binaire classique et montrons expérimentalement les avantages de cette technique. Troisièmement, nous nous intéressons aux approches fondées sur les classements pour le raisonnement en logique et en argumentation. / In this thesis, we investigate reasoning techniques with argumentation graphs generated from inconsistent knowledge bases expressed in the existential rules language. The existential rules language is a subset of first-order logic in which a knowledge base is composed of two layers: a fact layer and an ontology layer.The fact layer consists of factual knowledge (usually stored in relational databases) whereas the ontology layer consists of reasoning rules of deduction and negative constraints.Since the classical query answering approaches fail in the presence of inconsistencies, we chose to work with an conflict-tolerant reasoning approach that is based on building graphs with structured arguments and attacks from the deductions of the underlying logical knowledge base.The three main results are the following. First, we study how argumentation graphs are obtained from knowledge bases expressed in existential rules, the structural properties of such graphs and show several insights as to how their generation can be improved. Second, we propose a framework that generates an argumentation graph with a special feature called sets of attacking arguments instead of the regular binary attack relation and show how it improves upon the current state-of-the-art using an empirical analysis. Third, we interest ourselves to ranking-based approaches in both the context of query answering and argumentation reasoning. In the former, we introduce a framework that is based on ranking maximal consistent subsets of facts (repairs) in order to have a more productive query answering. In the latter, we set up the foundation theory for semantics that rank arguments in argumentation graphs with sets of attacking arguments.

The purpose of this essay was to analyze rhetorical features of Swedish drug advertising and see if drug advertising could be misleading or not. The study was primarily concentrated on how pills were described and that was the overall picture of pills created in commercials. The essay uses theories of narrative, semiotic, argumentation and theories concerning social communication in advertising. In this study fife TV-ads were analyzed: Alvedon, Ibumetin, Treo, Bamyl, and Ipren. The analysis showed that drug advertising has the potential to be misleading mostly because the overall picture of pills which creates in commercials is strong and kind heroes. / Reklam för receptfria läkemedel är tillåten i Sverige även om vissa experter, politiker och vanliga konsumenter ställer sig kritiska till reklamens form och innehåll. Det finns en oro om att läkemedelsreklam kan leda till felaktig medicinering. I denna studie genomför jag en retorisk kvalitativ analys av reklamfilmer för receptfria värktabletter för att se om oron är befogad och om reklamen har potential för att vara missvisande. Resultatet visar bl.a. att det i reklamfilmerna åstadkoms en uppfattning om värktabletter som starka och snälla hjälten vilket kan vara starkt vilseledande då dessa kriterier strider mot verkligheten.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of argumentation based instruction on sixth grade students

The study of nonmonotonic logics is one mayor field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The reason why such kind of formalisms are so attractive to model human reasoning is that they allow to withdraw former conclusion. At the end of the 1980s the novel idea of using argumentation to model nonmonotonic reasoning emerged in AI. Nowadays argumentation theory is a vibrant research area in AI, covering aspects of knowledge representation, multi-agent systems, and also philosophical questions. Phan Minh Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) play a dominant role in the field of argumentation. In AFs arguments and attacks between them are treated as primitives, i.e. the internal structure of arguments is not considered. The major focus is on resolving conflicts. To this end a variety of semantics have been defined, each of them specifying acceptable sets of arguments, so-called extensions, in a particular way. Although, Dung-style AFs are among the simplest argumentation systems one can think of, this approach is still powerful. It can be seen as a general theory capturing several nonmonotonic formalisms as well as a tool for solving well-known problems as the stable-marriage problem. This thesis is mainly concerned with the investigation of metalogical properties of Dung’s abstract theory. In particular, we provide cardinality, monotonicity and splitting results as well as characterization theorems for equivalence notions. The established results have theoretical and practical gains. On the one hand, they yield deeper theoretical insights into how this nonmonotonic theory works, and on the other the obtained results can be used to refine existing algorithms or even give rise to new computational procedures. A further main part is the study of problems regarding dynamic aspects of abstract argumentation. Most noteworthy we solve the so-called enforcing and the more general minimal change problem for a huge number of semantics.

We provide a systematic in-depth study of the semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs), a recent generalisation of Dung\'s abstract argumentation frameworks. This is done by associating with an ADF its characteristic one-step consequence operator and defining various semantics for ADFs as different fixpoints of this operator. We first show that several existing semantical notions are faithfully captured by our definition, then proceed to define new ADF semantics and show that they are proper generalisations of existing argumentation semantics from the literature. Most remarkably, this operator-based approach allows us to compare ADFs to related nonmonotonic formalisms like Dung argumentation frameworks and propositional logic programs. We use polynomial, faithful and modular translations to relate the formalisms, and our results show that both abstract argumentation frameworks and abstract dialectical frameworks are at most as expressive as propositional normal logic programs.

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have recently been proposed as a versatile generalization of Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of the computational complexity of ADFs. Our results show that while ADFs are one level up in the polynomial hierarchy compared to AFs, there is a useful subclass of ADFs which is as complex as AFs while arguably offering more modeling capacities. As a technical vehicle, we employ the approximation fixpoint theory of Denecker, Marek and Truszczyński, thus showing that it is also a useful tool for complexity analysis of operator-based semantics.

There exists a general consensus in the science education literature around the goal of enhancing students. and teachers. views of nature of science (NOS). An emerging area of research in science education explores NOS and argumentation, and the aim of this study was to explore the effectiveness of a science content course incorporating explicit NOS and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers. views of NOS. A constructivist perspective guided the study, and the research strategy employed was case study research. Five preservice primary teachers were selected for intensive investigation in the study, which incorporated explicit NOS and argumentation instruction, and utilised scientific and socioscientific contexts for argumentation to provide opportunities for participants to apply their NOS understandings to their arguments. Four primary sources of data were used to provide evidence for the interpretations, recommendations, and implications that emerged from the study. These data sources included questionnaires and surveys, interviews, audio- and video-taped class sessions, and written artefacts. Data analysis involved the formation of various assertions that informed the major findings of the study, and a variety of validity and ethical protocols were considered during the analysis to ensure the findings and interpretations emerging from the data were valid. Results indicated that the science content course was effective in enabling four of the five participants. views of NOS to be changed. All of the participants expressed predominantly limited views of the majority of the examined NOS aspects at the commencement of the study. Many positive changes were evident at the end of the study with four of the five participants expressing partially informed and/or informed views of the majority of the examined NOS aspects. A critical analysis of the effectiveness of the various course components designed to facilitate the development of participants‟ views of NOS in the study, led to the identification of three factors that mediated the development of participants‟ NOS views: (a) contextual factors (including context of argumentation, and mode of argumentation), (b) task-specific factors (including argumentation scaffolds, epistemological probes, and consideration of alternative data and explanations), and (c) personal factors (including perceived previous knowledge about NOS, appreciation of the importance and utility value of NOS, and durability and persistence of pre-existing beliefs). A consideration of the above factors informs recommendations for future studies that seek to incorporate explicit NOS and argumentation instruction as a context for learning about NOS.

La majorité des recherches en sciences cognitives suppose que la fonction du raisonnement humain est d'aider l'individu à avoir de meilleures croyances et à prendre de meilleures décisions, en particulier grâce à des mécanismes mentaux d'inférences logiques. En 2011, Dan Sperber et Hugo Mercier ont proposé une vision alternative du raisonnement humain. La fonction du raisonnement serait argumentative : le raisonnement serait ce qui permet aux individus de produire et d'évaluer des arguments en contextes dialogiques. Cette thèse a d'une part pour objectif de proposer une comparaison théorique entre les théories standards du raisonnement et la théorie argumentative du raisonnement. D'autre part, elle apporte un soutien empirique a la théorie argumentative à travers différents paradigmes expérimentaux (i.e., résolution de problème individuelle, production et évaluation d'arguments individuelles, résolution de problème et échange d'arguments en groupe). Cette thèse défend non seulement la valeur explicative de la théorie argumentative du raisonnement, mais caractérise également les mécanismes cognitifs du raisonnement humain, de part leurs fonctions, leurs biais, et les contextes qui les déclenchent / Most research in cognitive science assumes that the function of human reasoning is to help individual to improve their beliefs and make better decisions, in particular through mental mechanisms of logical inference. In 2011, Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier put forward an alternative view of human reasoning. The function of reasoning would be argumentative: reasoning would be what enables individuals to produce and evaluate arguments in dialogical contexts. This PhD thesis aims at proposing a theoretical comparison between standard theories of reasoning and the argumentative theory of reasoning. Furthermore, it provides empirical support for the latter by using different experimental paradigms (i.e., individual problem solving, production and evaluation of arguments in solitary contexts, problem solving and arguments exchange in group). This thesis not only defends the explanatory value of the argumentative theory but also characterizes the cognitive mechanisms of human reasoning by their functions, their biases, and their triggering contexts

Parmi les activités génériques, historiques et significatives du métier d’avocat pénaliste, la plaidoirie aux Assises représente le cœur du métier et une source puissante de son identité. Il s’agit, dans cette activité, d’agir par le discours dans une dialogie complexe impliquant les différentes parties. Ce discours s’adresse à la Cour, à la société, aux jurés, et vise à agir sur l’intime conviction de ceux qui seront amenés à rendre un verdict. En quoi consiste, et quels sont les ressorts discursifs de l’art de la plaidoirie ? C’est à cette question que cherche à répondre la présente recherche.Cette recherche s’inscrit dans un programme de recherche sur l’analyse des activités symboliques (Kostulski, 2011), activités professionnelles qui visent d’une manière ou d’une autre à agir dans la vie psychologique d'autrui. Elle puise ses sources théoriques dans les champs de la psychologie sociale et de la clinique de l'activité, mais aussi en psychologie de l'art. Nous y soutenons la thèse selon laquelle la plaidoirie de la défense aux assises est un art au sens de Vygotski, c'est-à-dire une technique sociale du sentiment, dont les éléments constitutifs sont la contradiction et la catharsis.Parmi les affaires récentes ayant eu un fort retentissement médiatique de par sa nature et ses conclusions, l’affaire Courjault, affaire dite "des bébés congelés" a marqué le métier d’avocat par l’exemplarité, la justesse et l’efficacité de la plaidoirie réalisée par Me Henri Leclerc.Le texte de cette plaidoirie, intégralement retranscrit, est analysé de manière à mettre en évidence les ressorts argumentatifs et dialogiques qui président à cet art. Une analyse réflexive de la plaidoirie a par ailleurs été organisée avec son auteur, Me Leclerc, dans un entretien de confrontation au texte visant à comprendre les buts, les destinataires et les moyens de cette activité réalisée.Nous y analysons d’une part les conflictualités dialogiques portées par les différentes voix en présence dans l’affaire et que l’avocat convoque dans son discours ; et d'autre part les procédés de leurs résolutions proposés par l'avocat. La question théorique de la conflictualité dialogique a eté envisagée en référence à Bakhtine (1979) et à Markova (2007) et la question de la régulation par l’art du discours en référence au travail en Psychologie de l’Art de Vygotski (1925), en particulier son travail d’analyse de la construction littéraire d’une nouvelle : Le Souffle léger.Le choix des unités d'analyse de la plaidoirie s'est mis en place à partir de la conception vygotskienne de l’art. Nous retenons comme unités opérantes pour nos analyses les voix du tiers dans le discours (Grossen, 2011) pour l'identification des conflictualités dialogiques, mais également le "witcraft" (Billig, 1996) et la sémiotisation des émotions (Micheli, 2016) pour le mouvement rhétorique de résolution de ces conflictualités.Nos analyses nous mènent à conclure que la dynamique de la plaidoirie est celle d'un art du délibéré, où conflictualité et résolution de cette conflictualité s'organisent pour agir sur la conviction du juré. Cet art permettrait la construction d’un espace de délibération mettant en mouvement la dialogie complexe du dossier, dans le but d'agir sur l'intime conviction Cet art ephemere ne serait alors qu'un moyen, un passage, permettant aux voix en présence de se répondre, et peut être de se rejoindre dans un processus cathartique. / The pleading for the crime court lawyers is the heart of their work activity. The purpose is to act through complex dialogical ways on the intimate conviction of the jurors. How ? This is the whole goal of that reserach : understand how the lawyer uses language to act and convince.This research takes place in a program studying symbolic activities (Kostulski, 2011). The theorical background are the social psychology, the work psychology, but also the psychology of art. We defend the thesis that the pleading of the defendant lawyer is an art as Vygotski defines it, that is to say a social technique of the feeling, built from contradiction and catharsis.To analyse this process we chose the case Courjault, also known as the case of the « frozen babies », that occured in France in 2008, and that was defended by Henri Leclerc. The efficiency of this lawyer was highly recognized during the trial, and especially for the pleading he performed.The whole pleading retranscribed is analysed in this research, in order to emphacize the ways art appears, by dialogical and argumentative dimensions. We also had the possibility to meet Henri Leclerc twice so that we could show him the pleading text and ask him to comment on it, telling us what he was trying to do while pleading on that particular case.Conflictuality was studied through Bakhtin (1979) and Markova’s (2007) works, and the catharsis process through Vygotski’s psychology of art (1925). We chose as analysis unities the third parties voices (Grossen, 2011), Billig‘s witcraft concept (1996), and Micheli’s (2016) emotions semiotics.Our analysis led us to conclude that the pleading dynamic is the one of a deliberation art, where conflictualities and the resolution of it are organised to act on the juror conviction. This art would make a deliberation area appear, moving the complex dialogy of the case, in order to act on the intimate conviction.This ephemeral art would only fulfill itself to allow voices to hear and respond each other, and maybe come together in a cathartic process.