Annotation
literal: A number of argumentation schemes are taken from Bita Banihashemi and Iyad Rahwan's previous version of the AIF ontology.

Annotation
literal: Floris Bex

Annotation
literal: The AIF Ontology.

Annotation
literal: version 1.0

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Having to accept case Cn as a precedent, or as a recgnized exception to R would be intolerable (horrid, bad)

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A is an acceptable action

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Case C0 is tentatively acceptable as an initial presumption

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: if a contends A, A should be accepted as more (less) plausible

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: The search for knowledge found is adequately compelete.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There are alternative means other than B.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If an argument A occurs in a context of dialogue that requires a nonarbitrary definition for a key property F that occurs in A, and F is defined in an arbitrary way in A, then A ought to be rejected as deficient.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Some property F that occurs in argument A is defined in a way that is arbitrary

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A is false(true)

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: The penultimate step C(n-1) leads to a horrible outcome, Cn, which is not acceptable.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If A is brought about, bad consequences will plausibly occur

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If C is brought about, bad consequences (D) will plausibly occur

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: It is less likely that a has taken the evidence on both sides of the issue into account

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If an arguer x is biased, then it is less likely that x has taken the evidence on both sides of an issue into account in arriving at conclusion A

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: The Verbal Classification is based on a stipulative or biased definition that is subject to doubt

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Arguer a is biased

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A is true (false) in case C2

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: In this case, the individual a has property F and also property G

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A causes B

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: The conditional 'If A then C' is not, by itself, acceptable (nor are any sequences from A to C shorter than the one specified in the second premise)

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If A0 to An-1 are brought about, An which is a horrible (disastrous, bad) outcome will plausibly occur

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There exists a series of cases, C0, C1, ..., C(n-1), where each case leads to the next by a combination of causal precedent, and/or analogy steps.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There is an intervening sequence of propositions, B1, B2, ..., Bn-1, Bn, C, such that the following conditionals are true: If A then B1; If B1 then B2; ...; If Bn-1 then Bn; If Bn then C

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: For any given pair {ai, aj} of adjacent individuals in the sequence a1, a2, ..., an, individual aj is indistinguishable from ai with respect to F

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: a is a person of bad character

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Issue of character is relevant in the type of dialouge in which the argument was used

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: For all x, if x has property F, then x can be classified as having property G

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: In this case it was shown that a is committed to proposition A, according to the evidence of what he said or did

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Commitment to A does not imply commitment to B

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: commitments of a are inconsistent.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Generally, when an arguer is committed to A, it can be inferred that he is also committed to B.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: In this case, a is committed to B

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Evidence such as poll or appeal to common knowledge supports that A is generally accepted as true.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There are other golas that conflict with A

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There is evidence that supports the claim that these consequences will occur if A is brought about.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A has property F

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: a ought to continue trying to realize A

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There is a positive correlation between A and B

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: E is a credible expert source

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Certain differences between C1 and C2 tend to undermine the force of similarity cited

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Either A or C

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A should be brought about

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: For all x, if doing A is the established rule for x, then (subject to exceptional cases), x must do A (subject to penalty)

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Doing A is the established rule for a

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If x is a person of good (bad) moral character, then if x contends A, A should be accepted as more (less) plausible

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If hypothesis A is true, then a proposition B, reporting an event, will be observed to be true.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There exists case C3 that is similar to C1 but in which A is false (true)

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: For all x, if doing A is the established rule for x, then if the case of x is an exception, the rule does not apply to the case of x

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: The case of a is an exception

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A (a finding) is true in this situation

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: E's assertion is backed up by evidence

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A is not consistent with other expert assertions

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If you carry out A, then the negative consequences portrayed in this fearful situation will happen to you.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Here is a situation that is fearful to you

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Source E is an expert in subject domain D containing proposition A.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A should not be brought about

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Either A or C should not be brought about

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Admitting case C0, or bringing it forward in the first place, is not a good thing to do

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A is generally accepted as true

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There are good reasons to doubt A is not true even though it is generally accepted

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There is evidence that backs up the claim

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Generally, if x has property F then (usually, probably, typically) x also has property G

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Bringing about B is the way to bring about A

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: The goal is to bring about A

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: B is generally indicated as true when its sign, A, is true

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: For all x and y, if x has F then, if y is indistinguishable for x with respect to F, then y also has F

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A has property G

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: a has claimed or indicated that he is committed to proposition A (generally or in virtue of what he said in the past).

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: It is an irrational fear that is appealed to.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There are grounds for thinking majority are justified in accepting A

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: E asserts that A is true (false)

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: C is true (false)

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A is true (false)

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There are reasons to believe that correlation is more than a coincidence

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: The knowledge is not complete enough to support the argument adequately

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: E is not an honest source

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Q

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: P -> Q (If P then Q)

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: P

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: a is a person of good (bad) moral character

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: C0 is not acceptable

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: an does not have property F

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: It is not the case that A has property F

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: a need not do A

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: B has been observed to be false in a given instance

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Argument A occurs in a context of dialogue that requires a nonarbitrary definition for a key property F that occurs in A

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: a must do A (subject to penalty)

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: B has been observed to be true in a given instance

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: In this case, A occurs

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: In this case, B will occur

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Other evidence in this particular case shows that a is not really committed to A.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A (Undesired Action) is the converse of C (Desired Action)

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There are consequences of the opposite value that ought to be taken into account

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There is a third factor, C, causing both A and B

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If A were true (false) , it would be known to be true (false)

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If A is a popular practice among those familiar with what is acceptable or not with regard to A, that gives a reason to think that A is acceptable

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If A is a popular practice among those familiar with what is acceptable or not with regard to A, that gives a reason to think that A is acceptable

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A is a popular practice among those who are familiar with what is acceptable or not with regard to A

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: E is in a position to know whether A is true or false

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If A is brought about, good consequences will plausibly occur

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A is true (false) in case C1

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Argument A occurs in a context of dialogue that requires a certain level of precision

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: B is true in this situation

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If A is generally accepted as true, there exists a reason in favour of A

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If A is not carried out, this will stop the negative consequences from happening

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There is evidence that indicates doubt on whether A definitly has property F.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A0 is up for consideration as a proposal that seems initially like something that should be brought about

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: ~P

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: P

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: credibility of X as a sincere person who believes in his own argument has been put into question

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: A is a realistic goal

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Bringing up A0 would plausibly lead (in the given circumstances, as far as we know) to A1, which would in turn plausibly lead to A2, and so fourth, through the sequence A2,…,An

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: argument X should not be accepted

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Other steps are required to fill in the sequence of events to make it plausible

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: AA is a reasonable interpretation of A.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: The practical inconsistency can be resolved by further dialogue.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Case C0 would set a precedent with respect to an existing rule R

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There is a strong correlation between the sign and the event signified

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There are other events that more reliably account for the sign

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Generally, case C1 is similar to case C2

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There is a climate of social opinion that once people come to accept each step as plausible (or as accepted practice), they will then be led to accept the next step.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: There is a strong probability that the cited consequences will occur.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: a is typical of things that have F and may or may not have G

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Proposition A is not known to be true (false)

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If an argument A occurs in a context of dialogue that requires a certain level of precision, but some property F that occurs in A is defined in a way that is too vague to meet the requriements of that level of precision, then A ought to be rejected as deficient.

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Some property F that occurs in argument A is defined in a way that is too vague to meet the requirement of the level of precision appropriate for the context of dialogue in which A occurs

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If all a's previous attempts to realize A are wasted, that would be a bad thing

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: If a stops trying to realize A now, all a's previous effors to realize A will be wasted

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: The weakest link in the sequence show one event may not really lead to another

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Dr. Phil is a credible expert source

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Expert Opinion Argument 1: Dr. Phil and tipping

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Dr. Phil's assertion is backed up by evidence

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: The fact that tipping lowers self esteem is not consistent with other expert assertions

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Dr. Phil is an expert in Psychology

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Dr. Phil says that tipping lowers self esteem

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Tipping lowers self esteem

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Dr. Phil is not an honest source

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Dr. Phil's assertion is not backed up by evidence

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Tipping improves self esteem

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Tipping improves self-esteem

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Rewarding improves self esteem

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Generally Tipping is like rewarding

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Allen says Brazil has the best football team

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Brazil has the best football team

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Allen is not an honest source

DataPropertyAssertion
literal: Allen is in position to know about football teams

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #Analogy_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Argument from Analogy

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #CausalSlipperySlope_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Slippery Slope Argument

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #CircumstantialAdHominem_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #Commitment_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Argument from Commitment

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #ContainsProperty_Statement
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #CorrelationToCause_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Argument from Correlation to Cause

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #Dilemma_Inference
literal: Scheme for Argument from Dilemma

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #DirectAdHominem_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Direct Ad Hominem Argument

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #ExpertOpinion_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Argument from Expert Opinion

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #FearAppeal_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Argument from Fear Appeal

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #GeneralBackUpEvidence_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #GoalPlan_Statement
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #Goal_Statement
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #I-node
literal: I-nodes contain information. They can only be connected through an S-node.

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #Ignorance_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Plausible Argument from Ignorance

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #InconsistentCommitment_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Argument from Inconsistent Commitment

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #IndicationBySign_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #Inference
literal: has Exception belongs to Presumptive - Should be considered

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #InferredProperty_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #InitialCommitment_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #JustificationGround_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #KnowledgeAssertion_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #LackOfCoincidence_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #LackOfCompleteKnowledge_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #LackOfReliability_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #Logical_Conflict
literal: This conflict scheme denotes a conflict between a proposition P and its negation not-P

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #NegContainsProperty2_Statement
literal: It is not the case that A has property F

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #NegativeConsequences_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Argument from Negative Consequences

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #OppositeAction_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #OppositeConsequences_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #OtherCausalFactorsInvolved_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #PopularOpinion_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Argument from Popular Opinion

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #PopularPractice_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Argument from Popular Practice

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #PositionToHaveKnowledge_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #PositionToKnow_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Argument from PositionToKnow

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #PositiveConsequence_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #PositiveConsequences_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Argument from Positive Consequences

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #PracticalReasoning_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Practical Reasoning

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #Precedent_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #PresumedCause_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #PresumptionOfGeneralAcceptance_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #ProposalConsideration_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #QuestionedCredibility_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #RealisticGoal_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #RecursiveAction_Desc
literal: Main

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #S-node
literal: S-nodes specify relations (e.g. conflict, inference, preference) between other nodes. Note that every S-node must be between 2 other nodes, that is, it is impossible to talk about a relation between 2 nodes (an S-node) without specifying these 2 nodes.

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #Sign_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Argument from Sign

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #VerbalClassification_Scheme
literal: Scheme for Argument from Verbal Classification

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #arg1ExpertiseInconsistencyStatement

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #formDescription
literal: This is the actual text contained in an I-node or Descriptor

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #hasException

AnnotationAssertion
IRI: #hasException_Desc