Connections between two arguments tell us how we should think about their relationship. We
can represent three types of relationship:
In a supports-relationship, one argument makes an assertion that backs up or provides
evidence for the target argument. For example, if Bob says that he has been refereeing for 20
years without any problems, this supports the claim that he can be trusted to referee the match.
In this scenario, the conclusion is supported so unless we have a counter-argument, we should
accept it...
Attacks
The attacking argument provides evidence or reasoning that weakens the target argument. There are
three ways to think about attacks:
Rebutting
An argument that directly attacks another one. Alice's argument directly rebuts the main
claim that Bob can be trusted to referee the football match. If there was just the main
claim, Alice's attack, and Bob's support, then the main claim would be an unacceptable
argument since it is attacked but not defended.
Undermining
A rebuttal on an argument that supports or attacks another one. We say that Bob's
argument that he made the comment eight years ago undermines the attack between
Alice's claim (that Bob is biased) and the main claim (that Bob can competently referee).
Given just the three arguments-the
main claim, Alice's attack, and Bob's counter-attack, the main claim is now acceptable
because it is defended from all the rebuttals. As we can see, as we add or remove
arguments further arguments become acceptable or unacceptable-this is one reason why argument maps
support richer reasoning compared to simpler representations.
Countering
When an argument is attacked, it can be defended by providing a counter-argument on the
attacking one. Bob's undermining argument is a counter-attack. Crucially,
counter-attacks can also be countered, and so on. Alice provides a
counter-(counter-argument), claiming that Bob made the same statement last year as well.
Now with this information, the main claim has become unacceptable again!
Undercutting (not supported yet)
There is a fourth type of attack, an undercut, which for simplicity we do not
currently represent. However, for completeness it should be noted that
undercut is an attack on the relationship between two arguments. For example, if
argument A attacks B, then an undercut could say that whilst A might be correct, it is
not correct to say that A attacks B (i.e., A is neither contradictory nor contrary to B
in any way). An undercut can be used to represent a non-sequitur.
Citations Between Arguments
There are cases where an argument depends on another, because it cites another argument
as evidence that someone has said something. If Bob's cited
argument, about Oakwood's players being deceptive, is attacked then it has no bearing on whether
Alice's claim that Bob is biased should not be accepted. The cites relationship is particularly
useful when making arguments about the values, ideologies, or other personal positions of people
or organisations making arguments, whilst also allowing us to further explore those arguments as
a part of a wider argument map.
