This special issue presents an international discussion of the research program proposed by the Polish School of Argumentation. On the one hand, this program is rooted in the rich tradition of the Polish studies of reasoning, language and scientific method in the Lvov-Warsaw School. On the other hand, it is in line with the current research strands in the study of argumentation.

Table of contents
The papers of the Polish authors are released under Open Access.

• Katarzyna Budzynska & Marcin Koszowy (2014) Introduction: Argument Studies in Poland, Argumentation, Springer, 28(3): 259-266
• Katarzyna Budzynska, Michal Araszkiewicz, Barbara Bogołȩbska, Piotr Cap, Tadeusz Ciecierski, Kamila Debowska-Kozlowska, Barbara Dunin-Kȩplicz, Marcin Dziubiński, Michał Federowicz, Anna Gomolińska, Andrzej Grabowski, Teresa Hołówka, Łukasz Jochemczyk, Magdalena Kacprzak, Paweł Kawalec, Maciej Kielar, Andrzej Kisielewicz, Marcin Koszowy, Robert Kublikowski, Piotr Kulicki, Anna Kuzio, Piotr Lewiński, Jakub Z. Lichański, Jacek Malinowski, Witold Marciszewski, Edward Nieznański, Janina Pietrzak, Jerzy Pogonowski, Tomasz A. Puczyłowski, Jolanta Rytel, Anna Sawicka, Marcin Selinger, Andrzej Skowron, Joanna Skulska, Marek Smolak, Małgorzata Sokół, Agnieszka Sowińska, Piotr Stalmaszczyk, Tomasz Stawecki, Jarosław Stepaniuk, Alina Strachocka, Wojciech Suchoń, Krzysztof Szymanek, Justyna Tomczyk, Robert Trypuz, Kazimierz Trzȩsicki, Mariusz Urbański, Ewa Wasilewska-Kamińska, Krzysztof A. Wieczorek, Maciej Witek, Urszula Wybraniec-Skardowska, Olena Yaskorska, Maria Załȩska, Konrad Zdanowski, Tomasz Żurek (2014) The Polish School of Argumentation: A Manifesto, Argumentation, Springer, 28(3): 267-282 (first published under Open Access: DOI 10.1007/s10503-014-9320-8)
• Marcin Koszowy & Michal Araszkiewicz (2014) The Lvov-Warsaw School as a Source of Inspiration for Argumentation Theory, Argumentation, Springer, 28(3): 283-300
• Katarzyna Budzynska & Maciej Witek (2014) Non-Inferential Aspects of Ad Hominem and Ad Baculum, Argumentation, Springer, 28(3): 301-315 (first published under Open Access: DOI 10.1007/s10503-014-9322-6)
• Douglas Walton (2014) Speech Acts and Indirect Threats in Ad Baculum Arguments: A reply to Budzynska and Witek, Argumentation, Springer, 28(3): 317-324
• Kamila Debowska-Kozlowska (2014) Processing topics from the Beneficial Cognitive Model in partially and over-successful persuasion dialogues, Argumentation, Springer, 28(3): 325-339
• Fabio Paglieri (2014) Nothing persuades like success: reflections on partially and oversuccessful persuasion. A reply to Debowska-Kozlowska, Argumentation, Springer, 28(3): 341-348
• Magdalena Kacprzak & Olena Yaskorska (2014) Dialogue Protocols for Formal Fallacies, Argumentation, Springer, 28(3): 349-369
• Wilfrid Hodges (2014) Dialogue protocols for formal fallacies: A reply to Kacprzak and Yaskorska, Argumentation, Springer, 28(3): 371-377
• Marcin Selinger (2014) Towards Formal Representation and Evaluation of Arguments, Argumentation, Springer, 28(3): 379-393
• Chris Reed (2014) Structured arguments and their aggregation: A reply to Selinger, Argumentation, Springer, 28(3): 395-399

Detailed description

The aim of this issue is to bring together a collection of extended versions of papers presented at the international editions of ArgDiaP conference meetings. The introduction will lay out the central themes and the main approaches of the Polish School of Argumentation. In order to stress the link between the School and the most prominent research strands in contemporary argumentation theory, we also solicit ‘discussion’ papers: shorter contributions authored by the outstanding representatives of the major research centres in argumentation theory who comment on the papers authored by the representatives of the Polish School of Argumentation.

The issue consists of ten papers. The first two papers lay the foundations for the programme of our research movement: its  manifesto and applications of the Polish research tradition in argument studies. The next eight papers are dedicated to specific aspects of the force of argument – the main focus of the School’s investigations. Each aspect is explored in two papers: one by a representative of the Polish School and a commentary paper by a member of the broader international community.

Research programme and foundations: consists of two papers – the manifesto by Katarzyna Budzynska et al., and an article further elaborating on the Polish research heritage in argument studies by Marcin Koszowy (philosophy & logic, Białystok) and Michał Araszkiewicz (law & computational models of argument, Krakow).

The special issue opens with a paper that lays out the central themes and main approaches of the Polish School of Argumentation. This statement – the Manifesto – is co-authored by 55 contributors to the School, representing a variety of disciplines and 20 Polish institutions. The paper gives an outline of the research programme, which is based on the idea of systematic study of the force of argument with a focus on reason, trust and cognition. The manifesto describes the methodological programme for the interdisciplinary approach, the roots and main research topics of the School, and its organisation and infrastructure.

Koszowy and Araszkiewicz further examine the roots of the Polish School of Argumentation. They claim that the heritage of the Lvov-Warsaw School can be a source of inspiration for the study of the formal and pragmatic force of argument. In particular, the paper shows how the ideas of Ajdukiewicz, Boche´nski and Frydman may be employed in solving contemporary open problems in argumentation theory, and thus it paves the way to a systematic inquiry into the overlap between the roots of the School and future developments in argument studies.

Pragmatic force of argument: a paper by Katarzyna Budzynska (philosophy & computational models of argument, Warsaw & Dundee) and Maciej Witek (philosophy of language & cognitive science, Szczecin), commented on by Douglas Walton (philosophy & Artificial Intelligence, Windsor, Canada).
Budzynska and Witek explore the interrelation between persuasion tactics and the properties of speech acts. They investigate the rhetorical and pragmatic facets of two types of ad arguments: ad hominem and ad baculum. In his reply, Walton stresses the specific ways in which Budzynska and Witek’s paper constitutes an important contribution to the current state of the art in the study of the nature of ad hominem and ad baculum. In order to show how Budzynska and Witek’s speech-act approach to modelling non-inferential aspects of these argumentative techniques may be further applied in research on the topic, Walton argues that yet another factor should be considered in modelling ad baculum arguments, i.e. contextual information about the framework of the dialogue in which this type of argument is embedded.

Persuasive force of argument: a paper by Kamila Debowska-Kozlowska (linguistics, Poznan), commented on by Fabio Paglieri (cognitive science, Rome).
Debowska-Kozlowska focuses on the persuasive force of argument by proposing a Cognitive Beneficial Model of persuasion. This model allows for the formulation of modified versions of a given standpoint which are needed to obtain two additional effects of persuasion: partially-successful dialogues and over-successful dialogues. In his commentary paper, Paglieri points out some directions for the future development of the model proposed by Debowska-Kozlowska. Key questions which may be an interesting starting point for future discussion include the following: What is the most adequate notion of persuasion? Is it sufficient to discuss the outcomes of persuasion exclusively in terms of success and failure? How can we explicate the notion of topic and what is the most accurate understanding of partial and excessive success?

Dialectical force of argument: a paper by Magdalena Kacprzak (computer science & mathematics, Białystok) and Olena Yaskorska (logic & linguistics, Warsaw), commented on by Wilfrid Hodges (logic & mathematics, Okehampton, UK).
Kacprzak and Yaskorska propose a tool for the evaluation of the force of argument in dialogical scenarios in which players advance deductively incorrect arguments. The authors present a formal dialogue system called Lorenzen-Hamblin Natural Dialogue (LHND), in which participants are allowed to commit formal fallacies but have a method of both identifying and withdrawing them. Taking into account the point of view of mathematical logic, Hodges explores the links between Kacprzak and Yaskorska’s proposal and the most significant dialogue approaches to discussion and reasoning. He analyses in detail Lorenzen and Hamblin’s accounts of dialogue and the meaning of key terms such as claiming, conceding and commitment, particularly with respect to claiming and conceding in dialogues.

Logical force of argument: a paper by Marcin Selinger (logic&philosophy, Wrocław), commented on by Chris Reed (computer science & philosophy, Dundee, Scotland).
Selinger proposes a formal model of representation and numerical evaluation of a broad class of arguments, including those that occur in natural discourse, with special attention given to calculating the logical force of convergent arguments. Reed comments on this idea by discussing in detail some significant affinities between Selinger’s model and the latest computational approaches to structured argumentation and argument
aggregation. Despite the fact that Selinger comes from a different research background, associated with the heritage of the Lvov-Warsaw School, his endpoints are strikingly similar to solutions proposed by researchers such as Prakken, and his ambitious treatment of aggregation is in line with recent developments in the domain of AI reasoning systems.