What is an argumentation scheme?
An argumentation scheme is a recurring pattern of everyday reasoning. It sets out the premises that normally support a conclusion—for example, relying on expert opinion, drawing an analogy or predicting the consequences of an action. Unlike a deductive proof, the conclusion is open to challenge when new information appears.
Each scheme therefore comes with critical questions that expose its weaker assumptions: is the expert credible, are the two cases genuinely similar, or could the proposed action produce different consequences? Argupedia uses the selected scheme to structure a contribution, then offers relevant questions when another argument challenges it.
What is a Dung-style argumentation graph?
A Dung-style argumentation framework strips a debate back to two elements: a set of arguments and the attack relationships between them. In the graph, each argument becomes a node and each attack becomes a directed arrow. This makes the structure of a disagreement visible without assuming that one claim is true simply because it was entered first or stated most forcefully.
Formal semantics then evaluate how arguments defend and defeat one another. Argupedia can apply grounded, complete or preferred semantics and label arguments as accepted, rejected or undecided. These labels describe defensible positions within the graph; they do not provide an objective verdict on which person has “won” the debate.