"Argument Schemes: An Epistemological Approach," Christoph Lumer, Universita' di Siena.
I like this topic very much, as I find the notion of Argument schemes to historically interesting (descending from the medieval variations on the Aristotelian topoi), theoretically enlightenging (as a classificatory system of argument types), and pedagogically useful (as a way of teaching argument construction and evaluation). Lumer likes the idea of schemes as well, but finds the articulation of them wanting. His paper articulated a different, and more limited set, of schemes (basically deductive, inductive, and practical). Those aren't so much schemes as they are types of argument. Nonetheless, the focus of Lumer's work is the epistemic theory of argumentation, which understands arguments as about justifief belief, rather than, say, agreement, conflict resolution, etc. Fun thing about this paper is the Douglas Walton, the leading exponent of the scheme view under criticism, was in attendence, and challenged Lumer's approach in the Q and A. He questioned the basis of Lumer's selection of schemes–pointing out that it was overly theoretical, and unrelated to the way people actually argue. A good time was had by all.