Types Of Arguments Research Articles

Analysis of Anti-Vaccination Discourse on Turkish Alternative News Websites

The media's information and enticement functions have grown increasingly important as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The purpose of this research on the anti-vaccination movement in Turkey was to better elucidate the different types of arguments that are deployed by key actors in the field of anti-vaccination, especially online. This research has analyzed the anti-vaccine movement, particularly in Turkey. More specifically, the argument that is deployed online by the alternative Turkish news websites is being analyzed. According to the results of the study, it was found that the news sites do not agree even when it comes to global issues such as pandemics. It is searched that alternative news websites have adopted the discourse of anti-vaccination without truly basing their arguments on scientific facts.

Argumentum Ad Alia: argument structure of arguing about what others have said

Expertise, authority, and testimony refer to aspects of one of the most important elements of communication and cognition. Argumentation theory recognises various forms of what we call the argumentum ad alia pattern, in which speakers appeal to what others have said, including Position to Know scheme, Witness Testimony scheme, Expert Opinion scheme and the classical ad verecundiam. In this paper we show that ad alia involves more than merely an inferential step from what others (a person in position to know, a witness, an expert) have said, and that studying this type of argumentation requires going beyond the argument structure of propositional contents to account for different speech activities. We also demonstrate that using the words of others, attacking what has been said, and reasoning from how others reason constitute a rich repertoire of communication strategies which we need to model in order to be able to analyse them manually and to process them computationally.

Epistemic Norms for Public Political Arguments

The aim of the article is to develop precise epistemic rules for good public political arguments, by which political measures in the broad sense are justified. By means of a theory of deliberative democracy, it is substantiated that the justification of a political measure consists in showing argumentatively that this measure most promotes the common good or is morally optimal. It is then discussed which argumentation-theoretical approaches are suitable for providing epistemically sound rules for arguments for such theses and for the associated premises, rules whose compliance implies the truth or acceptability of the thesis. Finally, on the basis of the most suitable approach, namely the epistemological one, such systems of rules for the required types of arguments are presented that fulfil the conditions mentioned.

The combinatorial patterns of twá 'to cut' in Asante-Twi (Akan):

Cross-linguistically, verbs have combinatorial patterns. When the semantics of a verb combines with the semantics of its internal arguments, different interpretations are derived. These interpretations can be literal or non-literal (Ameka 2019; Spalek 2015; Rappaport Hovav 2014; Bobuafor 2013, 2018; Levin and Rappaport Hovav 2013; Ameka and Essegbey 2007; Levin 1993). Using data collected from written texts, video-stimuli descriptions, spontaneous utterances and native-speaker intuitions, this paper explores the potential combinatorial patterns of twá ‘to cut’ in Asante-Twi (Akan, Kwa-Niger Congo). I show that the verb combines with different types of internal arguments, in different argument structure constructions to derive multiple interpretations. Taking into consideration the fact that “natural language tries to minimize polysemy” (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 2013: 2), I propose a univocal lexical semantics for twá ‘to cut’ and show that its basic semantics is kept constant even in non-prototypical contexts. I argue that the use of twá ‘to cut’ in non-prototypical contexts represent contextual modulations of the verb’s single meaning. Following Spalek (2015) and Ameka (2019), I suggest that such contextual interpretations should be analysed compositionally, paying attention to the verb’s internal arguments as well as the argument structure constructions in which it occurs.

How persuasive is AI-generated argumentation? An analysis of the quality of an argumentative text produced by the GPT-3 AI text generator

In this paper, we use a pseudo-algorithmic procedure for assessing an AI-generated text. We apply the Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation (CAPNA) in evaluating the arguments produced by an Artificial Intelligence text generator, GPT-3, in an opinion piece written for the Guardian newspaper. The CAPNA examines instances of argumentation in three aspects: their Process, Reasoning and Expression. Initial Analysis is conducted using the Argument Type Identification Procedure (ATIP) to establish, firstly, that an argument is present and, secondly, its specific type in terms of the argument classification framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA). Procedural Questions are then used to test the acceptability of the argument in each of the three aspects. The analysis shows that while the arguments put forward by the AI text generator are varied in terms of their type and follow familiar patterns of human reasoning, they contain obvious weaknesses. From this we can conclude that the automated generation of persuasive, well-reasoned argumentation is a far more difficult task than the generation of meaningful language, and that if AI systems producing arguments are to be persuasive, they require a method of checking the plausibility of their own output.

Legitimization of the constitutional judicial process by evidence (the case of Italy and France)

Under the conditions of legitimization of the constitutional process, constitutional subjects seek to improve the method of decision-making and privilege a certain type of argumentation. Although there are many tools to achieve this, the purpose of this contribution is limited to the study of evidence as a tool of legitimation. On the one hand, legal evidence, as it is an irreplaceable means of achieving a certain truth, and on the other hand, it is legitimized, as it involves an evidentiary procedure that guarantees the right of each participant in the legal process to have his case heard by a judge. If the evidentiary regime, whose function is to demonstrate the truth of the facts, is sometimes a pole apart from that which has the function of obtaining community approval, these two functions contribute to the same goal of legitimizing the constitutional process. Evidential legitimation does not correspond to a natural process, but rather consists of a discourse that treats the evidence in certain ways, or rather in different ways, in order to increase the legitimacy of the constitutional judge's decisions. If it falls under the specific field of comparative constitutional jurisprudence, the contribution appeals to the context of the general theory of evidence and, in particular, to the recently conceptualized functions of evidence. It follows from this that in the process of depoliticization or jurisdictionalization of the review of constitutionality, constitutional subjects strive, on the one hand, to improve the way of decision-making, and on the other hand, to privilege a certain type of argumentation. Although there are many tools to achieve this, the purpose of this contribution is limited to the study of evidence as a tool of legitimation. More specifically, the process of legitimization by evidence can be conceived as a process initiated by legal entities in order to gain authority among different audiences. The main function of evidence is to verify the production of facts that are decisive for the resolution of the dispute and to which the law attributes legal consequences. This function of proof consists in determining the truth of statements that describe the occurrence of these defining facts. However, it is important to note that this contribution is not intended to position itself on the content of the truth in the judicial process.

High Costs and Low Benefits: Analysis and Evaluation of the “I’m Not Stupid” Argument

This article presents an analysis and evaluation of what I call the “I’m not stupid” argument. This argument has ancient roots, which lie in Aristotle’s famous description of the weak man’s and strong man’s arguments. An “I’m not stupid” argument is typically used in a context of accusation and defense, by a defendant who argues that they did not commit the act of which they have been accused. The analysis of this type of argument takes the shape of an argumentative pattern, which displays a full-fledged representation of its argumentation structure. It is based on a collection of ten contemporary instances of the “I’m not stupid” argument. Although ten instances constitute a small collection, the wide variation in the argumentative elements that they express explicitly or leave implicit made it possible to identify five new key premises in comparison with previous analyses of the weak man’s and strong man’s arguments (Walton, Tindale and Gordon 2014 in Argumentation 28:85–119, 2014; Walton 2019 in Argumentation 33:45–74, 2019). These new premises show that the crucial point of an evaluation of this argument is the arguer's supposedly rational character in making a gain-loss calculation. They also show that we need empirical data to strengthen our analyses of argument schemes and argumentation structures.

Can narratives about sovereign debt be generally ideologically suspicious? An exercise in broadening the scope of ideology critique

Can narratives about sovereign debt be generally ideologically suspicious? An exercise in broadening the scope of ideology critique

A Tale of Two Theories

A Tale of Two Theories

Evo‐devo beyond development: Generalizing evo‐devo to all levels of the phenotypic evolution

A foundational idea of evo-devo is that morphological variation is not isotropic, that is, it does not occur in all directions. Instead, some directions of morphological variation are more likely than others from DNA-level variation and these largely depend on development. We argue that this evo-devo perspective should apply not only to morphology but to evolution at all phenotypic levels. At other phenotypic levels there is no development, but there are processes that can be seen, in analogy to development, as constructing the phenotype (e.g., protein folding, learning for behavior, etc.). We argue that to explain the direction of evolution two types of arguments need to be combined: generative arguments about which phenotypic variation arises in each generation and selective arguments about which of it passes to the next generation. We explain how a full consideration of the two types of arguments improves the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. Also see the video abstract here: https://youtu.be/Egbvma_uaKc.

Reversal of the recommendations issued by the National Commission for the Incorporation of Technologies in SUS after Public Consultations.

The work analyzed the effect of Public Consultations (PC) and their contributions to the recommendations of the National Commission for the Incorporation of Technologies (CONITEC). This is a descriptive and retrospective study with a qualitative-quantitative approach using a secondary data source of public access, between 2012 and 2017. A database was developed to characterize the PC of medications and their contributions, which allowed the identification of cases of reversals between the preliminary and final recommendation of CONITEC. We analyzed the contributions in cases of reversal for characterization of argumentative axes and type of basis. Of the 307 demands for incorporation of medications, 205 went through PC, with 23,894 contributions. The reversal of the recommendations occurred in 9% of the open PC (15 medications), all in the sense of non-incorporation for incorporation. Main argumentative axes dealt with clinical benefits and minor adverse events, with prevalence of the submission of clinical experiences and opinions. Advances in the processes of incorporation of technologies in the SUS by performing PC were found and the challenge that decision makers face in institutional spaces for the improvement of social participation to strengthen the public benefit was clear.

Algebraic Symplectic Reduction and Quantization of Singular Spaces

The algebraic method of singular reduction is applied for non regular group action on manifolds which provides singular symplectic spaces. The problem of deformation quantization of the singular surfaces is the focus. For some examples of singular Poisson spaces the deformation quantization is explicitly constructed. In is shown that for the flat phase space with the classical moment map and the orthogonal group action the deformation quantization converges for the entire arguments of exponential type.

Dialogue Relation Extraction with Document-Level Heterogeneous Graph Attention Networks

We propose a heterogeneous graph attention network to address the problem of dialogue relation extraction. Compared with several popular sequence-based and graph-based models, our method shows superior performance on the benchmark dataset DialogRE. The implementation of this work can be found at https://github.com/declare-lab/dialog-HGAT Dialogue relation extraction aims to detect the relation between pairs of entities mentioned in a multi-party dialogue. It plays an essential role in understanding the deep logic of dialogues and facilitating the development of intelligent dialogue systems. We introduce a heterogeneous graph attention network to model the cross-sentence relations in a conversation. This heterogeneous graph attention network has modeled multi-type features of the conversation, such as utterance, word, speaker, argument, and entity type information. We compare our method with several popular baselines such as convolutional neural networks and long short-term memory, experimental results show our model outperforms the state-of-the-art method by 9.4%/7.8% F1 scores, and 6.6%/3.9% $$F1_c$$ scores in both validation and test sets with only 4.0M parameters. In this work, we present an attention-based heterogeneous graph network to deal with the dialogue relation extraction task in an inductive manner. Experimental results on the dataset DialogRE confirm the effectiveness of our method.

Primary School Students with Reading Comprehension Difficulties and Students with Learning Disabilities: Exploring Their Goal Orientations, Classroom Goal Structures, and Self-Regulated Learning Strategies.

The aim of the present study was to investigate goal orientations and classroom goal structures and their relationship with strategies of self-regulated learning (SRL) in students with and without learning disabilities (LD) and reading comprehension difficulties (RCD). The sample consisted of 537 students attending the two last grades of primary school, fifth and sixth grade (Mage = 11.28 years, SD = ±0.59). Of these, 58 students were diagnosed with LD, and 70 students, after individually administered assessments in reading accuracy and reading comprehension, were assigned to the RCD group. Self-reported questionnaires were administered, assessing students' personal goal orientations, classroom goal structures, and strategies of SRL. The results showed that students with LD and students with RCD scored lower in mastery orientation and higher in performance avoidance compared to their peers without difficulties (ND). LD students reported lower scores of adaptive strategies than their peers. In addition, the results confirmed the adaptive character of mastery-approach goals and mastery goal structures and the negative effects of performance-avoidance goals and performance goal structures on the adaptive strategies of SRL. Performance-approach goals predicted adaptive behaviors for all students, confirming the argument of an adaptive type of motivation. The findings of the current study highlight the importance of goal orientations and classroom goal structures for students' SRL. Implications of the findings for enhancing motivation for students with LD and students with RCD are discussed.

How can research on past urban adaptations be made useful for sustainability science?

Non-technical summaryCities in the distant past – as documented by archaeologists and historians – provide an extensive record of urban successes and failures, yet this information has had little impact on the field of sustainability science. I explore two reasons for this situation. First, these scholars have often failed to synthesize their data scientifically, and, second, they have not approached the transfer of past knowledge to present research in a rigorous manner. I organize discussion of these issues around three arguments for the present value of past cities: the urban trajectory argument, the sample size argument, and the laboratory argument.Technical summaryI explore the different ways historical and archaeological data can be deployed to contribute to research on urban sustainability science, emphasizing issues of argumentation and epistemology. I organize the discussion around three types of argument. The urban trajectory argument exploits the long time series of early cities and urban regions to examine change at a long time scale. The sample size argument views the role of early cities as adding to the known sample of settlements to increase understanding of urban similarities and differences. The laboratory argument uses data from past cities to explicitly test models derived from contemporary cities. Each argument is examined for three contrasting epistemological approaches: heuristic analogs, case studies, and quantitative studies. These approaches form a continuum leading from lesser to greater scientific rigor and from qualitative to quantitative frameworks. Much past-to-present argumentation requires inductive logic, also called reasoning by analogy. Sustainability scientists have confused this general form of argument with its weakest version, known as heuristic analogs. I stress ways to improve methods of argumentation, particularly by moving research along the continuum from weaker to stronger arguments.Social media summaryBetter methods of argument allow the past record of urban success and failure to contribute to urban sustainability science.

A Right Response to Anti-Natalism

Most people think that, other things being equal, you are at liberty to decide for yourself whether to have children. However, there are some people, aptly called anti-natalists, who believe that it is always morally wrong to have children. Anti-natalists are attracted to at least two types of arguments. According to the Positives Are Irrelevant Argument, unless a life contains no negative things at all, it is irrelevant that life also contains positive things. According to the Positives Are Insufficient Argument, while life does contain some positive things, as a matter of fact, almost everyone’s life contains more negative things than positive things. In this article, I first offer new reasons to reject these arguments. I then offer a positive, human rights account of why not only is it not wrong to bring people into existence, but parents in fact have a human right to do so.

Chimera of Naturalism and Free Will

This article is devoted to the analysis of arguments from empirical science against free will. Its main purpose is to reveal their deep anti-naturalism. This anti-naturalism lies in the use of a concept of free will that cannot be the subject of naturalistic consideration, as well as in the various explanatory and ontological paradoxes that arguments from empirical science lead in case when someone is trying to generalize the explanatory principles underlying them. At the beginning of the article, the author gives a general notion of the free will problem, a working definition of naturalism and the place of arguments from empirical science in discussions about free will. To achieve the main goal of the article, the author suggests a classification of arguments from empirical science, which includes five types: from prediction, from manipulation, from the brain, from illusion, from the substitution of concepts. In accordance with this classification, the structure of the article is defined, where each of the presented types is sequentially considered. The logic of considering each type of argument is approximately the same: explication of the essence of the argument of a particular type, its analysis, identification of basic principles and their generalization, demonstration of the negative consequences that it leads to, and answers to possible objections. In the course of the consideration, the author formulates an ontologically neutral concept of free will as a set of abilities associated with the agent’s control over his actions. At the end of the article, the main points is summed up, the idea of naturalistic compatibilism is proposed, the role of arguments from empirical science in discussions about free will is clarified, as is the problem of free will itself, the question of the sources of “chimerization” of naturalism is briefly highlighted, and the problem of completeness of the proposed reasoning is touched upon.

Kant’s political enlightenment: Free public use of reason as self-discipline

According to recent scholarship, Kant’sAn Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?and the introductory section toThe Conflict of the Facultiesare masterpieces of philosophical rhetoric. The philosophical significance of these texts lies in establishing the free public use of reason as a tool to discipline political power through pure practical reason, and the rhetorical mastery consists in presenting the free public use of reason as a means to satisfy the ruler’s pragmatic practical reason. Elaborating on this interpretation, I flesh out three further aspects of the writings in question. First, I examine the four types of arguments that Kant crafts in defence of the public use of reason and show how their pragmatic practical character is fully in keeping with the foundation of politics on pure practical ideas. Second, contrasting Kant’s notion of the public use of reason with the classical liberal conception of free speech, I argue that the distinctive character of Kant’s notion of the public use of reason consists in adding to the liberal demand for freedom from state censorship the requirement of the self-discipline of the participants in the public use of reason. Third, I contend that Kant’s notion of the public use of reason goes beyond a mere non-coercive discursive procedure and conclude that, to qualify as public in the distinctive Kantian sense, publicly presented positions must uphold theoretical and moral criteria informed by critical philosophy.

On the action of Toeplits operators into new BMOA type spaces in the unit disk

We provide new sharp results on the action of Toeplitz operators from Triebel and Besov spaces to new BMOA-type function spaces on the unit disk. We modify little our previously known proofs. We show our theorems using standard estimates of complex function theory. The proof of sufficiency and neccesity parts of our theorems follow the same type arguments as in previous already known cases. In particular we use standart test function for the proof of neccesity part and the same line of arguments as in previous already known cases. Our theorems may have many applications in complex function theory. Previously such type theorems were known in less general classses of BMOA type in the unit disk.

TIKTOK IN ELECTORAL COMMUNICATION: THE CASE OF RUSSIAN STATE DUMA ELECTIONS 2021

The article presents the results of an empirical study of the features of electoral communication in the political cluster of TikTok channels during the election of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the VIII convocation, which took place from September 17 to 19, 2021. Using the method of content analysis, content strategies that were used by channels of a polar political orientation were identified and characterized. Thus, pro-government channels followed a strategy that we described as “television”: an attempt to use existing formats (mainly television) on a new platform (cuttings from television interviews), a combination of emotional and rational types of argumentation (as in the course of television debates), the use of topics informational character). The channels of the opposition candidates used a personalized "user" approach: publishing video messages to users on behalf of the candidates, the emotional nature of the videos, designed to involve subscribers in communication. This approach made it possible to involve users in the electoral discussion to a greater extent, which was confirmed by the results of calculating the user involvement coefficient. At the same time, the results of the study showed that neither the pro-government nor the opposition political forces were ready to be fully involved in the creation of content and adapt it to the unique formats of the TikTok service, and in the vast majority of cases they published content previously created for other communication channels. Thus, the potential of TikTok was only half used.