This paper presents a novel argumentation framework to
support Issue-Based Information System style debates on design alternatives, by
providing an automatic quantitative evaluation of the positions put forward. It
also identifies several formal properties of the proposed quantitative argumentation
framework and compares it with existing non-numerical abstract argumentation formalisms.
Finally, the paper describes the integration of the proposed approach within the
design Visual Understanding Environment software tool along with three case
studies in engineering design. The case studies show the potential for a
competitive advantage of the proposed approach with respect to state-of-the-art
engineering design methods.