Historical overview of formal argumentation

Abstract

This article gives an overview of the history of formal argumentation in terms of a distinction between argumentation-based inference and argumentation-based dialogue. Systems for argumentation-based inference are about which conclusions can be drawn from a given body of possibly incomplete, inconsistent of uncertain information. They ultimately define a nonmonotonic notion of logical consequence, in terms of the intermediate notions of argument construction, argument attack and argument evaluation, where arguments are seen as constellations of premises, conclusions and inferences. Systems for argumentation-based dialogue model argumentation as a kind of verbal interaction aimed at resolving conflicts of opinion. They define argumentation protocols, that is, the rules of the argumentation game, and address matters of strategy, that is, how to play the game well. For both aspects of argumentation the main formal and computational models are reviewed and their main historical influences are sketched. Then some main applications areas are briefly discussed.