Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning.H. Prakken & G. Sartor - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
    Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a formal framework for assessing conflicting arguments. Its use is illustrated with applications to realistic legal examples, and the potential for implementation is discussed. The framework has the form of a logical system for defeasible argumentation. Its language, which is of a logic-programming-like nature, has both weak and explicit negation, and conflicts between arguments are decided with the help of priorities on the rules. An important feature of the system is that these priorities (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Defeasible Reasoning and Informal Fallacies.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Synthese 179 (3):377 - 407.
    This paper argues that some traditional fallacies should be considered as reasonable arguments when used as part of a properly conducted dialog. It is shown that argumentation schemes, formal dialog models, and profiles of dialog are useful tools for studying properties of defeasible reasoning and fallacies. It is explained how defeasible reasoning of the most common sort can deteriorate into fallacious argumentation in some instances. Conditions are formulated that can be used as normative tools to judge whether a given defeasible (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • AI and the Conquest of Complexity in Law.L. Wolfgang Bibel - 2004 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (3):159-180.
    The paper identifies some of the problems with legal systems and outlines the potential of AI technology for overcoming them. For expository purposes, this outline is based on a simplified epistemology of the primary functions of law. Social and philosophical impediments from the side of the legal community to taking advantage of the potential of this technology are discussed and strategic recommendations are given.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW]Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
    We provide a retrospective of 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law, which was first held in 1987. Fifty papers have been selected from the thirteen conferences and each of them is described in a short subsection individually written by one of the 24 authors. These subsections attempt to place the paper discussed in the context of the development of AI and Law, while often offering some personal reactions and reflections. As a whole, the subsections build into (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Legitimacy and the Virtualization of Dispute Resolution.Laurens Mommers - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):207-232.
    For any type of institutionalized dispute resolution, legitimacy is a crucial characteristic, as legitimate dispute resolution promotes, for instance, general trust in state institutions and participation in economic activity. A lack of legitimacy will prevent the acceptance of dispute resolution, and thereby its use. Although many textbook definitions limit the meaning of legitimacy to legality, in its every-day use legitimacy is in fact a much broader concept. It encompasses different criteria relating to the nature of dispute resolution: is a form (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Pleadings Game.Thomas F. Gordon - 1993 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (4):239-292.
    The Pleadings Game is a normative formalization and computational model of civil pleading, founded in Roberty Alexy''s discourse theory of legal argumentation. The consequences of arguments and counterarguments are modelled using Geffner and Pearl''s nonmonotonic logic,conditional entailment. Discourse in focussed using the concepts of issue and relevance. Conflicts between arguments can be resolved by arguing about the validity and priority of rules, at any level. The computational model is fully implemented and has been tested using examples from Article Nine of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • AI & Law, Logic and Argument Schemes.Henry Prakken - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (3):303-320.
    This paper reviews the history of AI & Law research from the perspective of argument schemes. It starts with the observation that logic, although very well applicable to legal reasoning when there is uncertainty, vagueness and disagreement, is too abstract to give a fully satisfactory classification of legal argument types. It therefore needs to be supplemented with an argument-scheme approach, which classifies arguments not according to their logical form but according to their content, in particular, according to the roles that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 1997 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7 (1-2):25-75.
    ABSTRACT Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a semantics and proof theory of a system for defeasible argumentation. Arguments are expressed in a logic-programming language with both weak and strong negation, conflicts between arguments are decided with the help of priorities on the rules. An important feature of the system is that these priorities are not fixed, but are themselves defeasibly derived as conclusions within the system. Thus debates on the choice between conflicting arguments can also be modelled. The (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   41 citations  
  • How to Make and Defend a Proposal in a Deliberation Dialogue.Douglas Walton - 2006 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (3):177-239.
    In this paper it is shown how tools developed in argumentation theory and artificial intelligence can be applied to the development of a new dialectical analysis of the speech act of making a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. These tools are developed, modified and used to formulate dialogue pre-conditions, defining conditions and post-conditions for the speech act of making a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. The defining conditions set out what is required for a move in a dialogue to count (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):111-142.
    Argumentation schemes are forms of reasoning that are fallible but correctable within a self-correcting framework. Their use provides a basis for taking rational action or for reasonably accepting a conclusion as a tentative hypothesis, but they are not deductively valid. We argue that teleological reasoning can provide the basis for justifying the use of argument schemes both in monological and dialogical reasoning. We consider how such a teleological justification, besides being inspired by the aim of directing a bounded cognizer to (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentation Without Arguments.Henry Prakken - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):171-184.
    A well-known ambiguity in the term ‘argument’ is that of argument as an inferential structure and argument as a kind of dialogue. In the first sense, an argument is a structure with a conclusion supported by one or more grounds, which may or may not be supported by further grounds. Rules for the construction and criteria for the quality of arguments in this sense are a matter of logic. In the second sense, arguments have been studied as a form of (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Three Faces of Defeasibility in the Law.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 2004 - Ratio Juris 17 (1):118-139.
  • Computational Dialectic and Rhetorical Invention.Douglas Walton - 2011 - AI and Society 26 (1):2011.
    This paper has three dimensions, historical, theoretical and social. The historical dimension is to show how the Ciceronian system of dialectical argumentation served as a precursor to computational models of argumentation schemes such as Araucaria and Carneades. The theoretical dimension is to show concretely how these argumentation schemes reveal the interdependency of rhetoric and logic, and so the interdependency of the normative with the empirical. It does this by identifying points of disagreement in a dialectical format through using argumentation schemes (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • An Automated System for Argument Invention in Law Using Argumentation and Heuristic Search Procedures.Douglas Walton - 2005 - Ratio Juris 18 (4):434-463.
    . A heuristic search procedure for inventing legal arguments is built on two tools already widely in use in argumentation. Argumentation schemes are forms of argument representing premise‐conclusion and inference structures of common types of arguments. Schemes especially useful in law represent defeasible arguments, like argument from expert opinion. Argument diagramming is a visualization tool used to display a chain of connected arguments linked together. One such tool, Araucaria, available free at , helps a user display an argument on the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Argumentation in AI and Law: Editors' Introduction. [REVIEW]Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon & Paul E. Dunne - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (1):1-8.
  • Editors' Introduction.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):157-161.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark