Abstract
To bridge the gap between human reasoning and machine reasoning, one of the key problems in argumentation research is how to model natural language arguments by formal argumentation. The slippery slope argument (SSA) is a commonly used type of argument in the context of deliberation, with the intent of persuading people not to take a particular action. In this paper, an argumentation theory for the basic form of SSA is given based on the formal argumentation framework \(ASPIC^+\) and argumentation schemes of SSA. Then, an SSA occurrence in a popular blog post about gene editing is taken as an example. By analyzing the case, this paper tries to model these arguments based on our argumentation theory and evaluates the arguments using abstract argumentation frameworks. The paper then points out that since whether an SSA is persuasive rests on whether its ultimate consequence is really unacceptable to the audience, value judgement should play an important role in the deliberation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
