On validating theories of abstract argumentation frameworks: the case of bipolar argumentation frameworks.

Abstract

This paper discusses the validation of abstract formal or computational theories of argumentation as normative theories of argumentation. Three validation approaches are discussed: instantiation with a more concrete theory of argumentation (theory-based validation), validating with intuitions about concrete examples (intuition-based validation) and comparing the theory with how humans actually argue (empirical validation). It is argued that intuition-based validation can be useful for validating structured but not for validating abstract accounts of argumentation, that empirical validation can be used at all levels of abstraction but at best as a partial validation method, and that a full validation of abstract accounts of argumentation should include theorybased validation. A case study of the ‘standard’ theory of bipolar frameworks reveals that it is to a large extent still awaiting validation as a good theory of rational argumentation.