  In argumentative discourse, persuasion is often achieved by refuting or
attacking others arguments. Attacking is not always straightforward and often
comprise complex rhetorical moves such that arguers might agree with a logic of
an argument while attacking another logic. Moreover, arguer might neither deny
nor agree with any logics of an argument, instead ignore them and attack the
main stance of the argument by providing new logics and presupposing that the
new logics have more value or importance than the logics present in the
attacked argument. However, no existing studies in the computational
argumentation capture such complex rhetorical moves in attacks or the
presuppositions or value judgements in them. In order to address this gap, we
introduce LPAttack, a novel annotation scheme that captures the common modes
and complex rhetorical moves in attacks along with the implicit presuppositions
and value judgements in them. Our annotation study shows moderate
inter-annotator agreement, indicating that human annotation for the proposed
scheme is feasible. We publicly release our annotated corpus and the annotation
guidelines.
