This modeling stance arises naturally in some application contexts, like multi-agent systems, but, more importantly, has a crucial impact on several general application-independent issues, like argumentation dynamics, argument summarization and explanation, incremental computation, and inter-formalism translation.
The significance of argument-2 need not deflect one from a focus on argument-1 (on arguments in the premise-and-conclusion sense), but it does mean that one must pay close attention, in the course of analyzing and assessing instances of argument-1, to "argumentation" understood in the argument-2 sense.
Strictly speaking, petitio principii is not a fallacy of reasoning but an ineptitude in argumentation: thus the argument from p as a premise to p as conclusion is not deductively invalid but lacks any power of conviction, since no one who questioned the conclusion could concede the premise.
This line of argumentation is called an indispensability argument (Colyvan 2001).
At one level, this line of argumentation is part of an argument for the existence of God.
It can be part of explanations of why reasonable people make mistakes in arguments or argumentation: it may be due in part to an argument's appearing to be better than it really is.
Finally, we present a pilot Semantic Web-based system, ArgDF, through which users can create arguments using different argumentation schemes and can query arguments using a Semantic Web query language.
Due to the efficiency of the division-based method, it is expected to be very useful in various kinds of argumentation systems where arguments and attacks are dynamics.
Thus, our dialogues can be seen as a distributed mechanism for successfully determining acceptability of claims (with respect to the semantics considered), while constructing argumentation frameworks and arguments for these claims.
This gives rise to a directed graph, the abstract argumentation framework, where arguments are nodes and arrows represent the attack relation.
