Irrationality in persuasive argumentation

Abstract

Much of the formal treatment of argumentation process in AI has analyzed this in terms of proof methodologies grounded in non-classical, especially non-monotonic, logics. Yet one can claim that such approaches, while sufficing to describe the fluid nature of so-called "real-world" debate, e.g. in appeal determination for legal scenarios, ignore one significant component which figures in persuasive debate, i.e. that an argument may be deemed acceptable not because of what constitutes the case put forward but rather because of how this case is advanced. In particular the perceived merits of a case may be coloured by, what are at heart irrational and emotionally driven, responses to its style and presentation rather than its content. In this overview we examine a range of contexts in which tempering emotional appeal in the presentation of an issue may influence the audience to which it is addressed and briefly consider how such situations may formally be modelled, embodied, and exploited within multiagent debates. © 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.