Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the first decade. [REVIEW]Guido Governatori, Trevor Bench-Capon, Bart Verheij, Michał Araszkiewicz, Enrico Francesconi & Matthias Grabmair - 2022 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 30 (4):481-519.
    The first issue of _Artificial Intelligence and Law_ journal was published in 1992. This paper provides commentaries on landmark papers from the first decade of that journal. The topics discussed include reasoning with cases, argumentation, normative reasoning, dialogue, representing legal knowledge and neural networks.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: Editor’s Introduction.Trevor Bench-Capon - 2022 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 30 (4):475-479.
    The first issue of _Artificial Intelligence and Law_ journal was published in 1992. This special issue marks the 30th anniversary of the journal by reviewing the progress of the field through thirty commentaries on landmark papers and groups of papers from that journal.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the second decade.Giovanni Sartor, Michał Araszkiewicz, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Tom van Engers, Enrico Francesconi, Henry Prakken, Giovanni Sileno, Frank Schilder, Adam Wyner & Trevor Bench-Capon - 2022 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 30 (4):521-557.
    The first issue of Artificial Intelligence and Law journal was published in 1992. This paper provides commentaries on nine significant papers drawn from the Journal’s second decade. Four of the papers relate to reasoning with legal cases, introducing contextual considerations, predicting outcomes on the basis of natural language descriptions of the cases, comparing different ways of representing cases, and formalising precedential reasoning. One introduces a method of analysing arguments that was to become very widely used in AI and Law, namely (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Schemes, Critical Questions, and Complete Argument Evaluation.Shiyang Yu & Frank Zenker - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (4):469-498.
    According to the argument scheme approach, to evaluate a given scheme-saturating instance completely does entail asking all critical questions relevant to it. Although this is a central task for argumentation theorists, the field currently lacks a method for providing a complete argument evaluation. Approaching this task at the meta-level, we combine a logical with a substantive approach to the argument schemes by starting from Toulmin’s schema: ‘data, warrant, so claim’. For the yet more general schema: ‘premise; if premise, then conclusion; (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Peirce Knew Why Abduction Isn’t IBE—A Scheme and Critical Questions for Abductive Argument.Shiyang Yu & Frank Zenker - 2017 - Argumentation 32 (4):569-587.
    Whether abduction is treated as an argument or as an inference, the mainstream view presupposes a tight connection between abduction and inference to the best explanation. This paper critically evaluates this link and supports a narrower view on abduction. Our main thesis is that merely the hypothesis-generative aspect, but not the evaluative aspect, is properly abductive in the sense introduced by C. S. Peirce. We show why equating abduction with IBE unnecessarily complicates argument evaluation by levelling the status of abduction (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • How to justify a backing’s eligibility for a warrant: the justification of a legal interpretation in a hard case.Shiyang Yu & Xi Chen - forthcoming - Artificial Intelligence and Law:1-30.
    The Toulmin model has been proved useful in law and argumentation theory. This model describes the basic process in justifying a claim, which comprises six elements, i.e., claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. Specifically, in justifying a claim, one must put forward ‘data’ and a ‘warrant’, whereas the latter is authorized by ‘backing’. The force of the ‘claim’ being justified is represented by the ‘qualifier’, and the condition under which the claim cannot be justified is represented as the ‘rebuttal’. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A functional perspective on argumentation schemes.Adam Wyner - 2016 - Argument and Computation 7 (2-3):113-133.
  • Witness Impeachment in Cross-Examination Using Ad Hominem Argumentation.Douglas Walton - 2018 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1):93-114.
    This paper combines methods of argumentation theory and artificial intelligence to extend existing work on the dialectical structure of crossexamination. The existing method used conflict diagrams to search for inconsistent statements in the testimony of a witness. This paper extends the method by using the inconsistency of commitments to draw an inference by the ad hominem argumentation scheme to the conclusion that the testimony is unreliable because of the bad ethical character for veracity of the witness.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • On a razor's edge: evaluating arguments from expert opinion.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (2-3):139-159.
    This paper takes an argumentation approach to find the place of trust in a method for evaluating arguments from expert opinion. The method uses the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion along with its matching set of critical questions. It shows how to use this scheme in three formal computational argumentation models that provide tools to analyse and evaluate instances of argument from expert opinion. The paper uses several examples to illustrate the use of these tools. A conclusion of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Justification of Argument Schemes.Douglas Walton - 2005 - Australasian Journal of Logic 3:1-13.
    Argumentation schemes are forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, especially defeasible ones like argument from expert opinion, that have proved troublesome to view deductively or inductively. Much practical work has already been done on argumentation schemes, proving their worth in AI, but more precise investigations are needed to formalize their structures. The problem posed in this paper is what form justification of a given scheme, as having a certain precise structure of inference, should take. It is (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Formalization of the ad hominem argumentation scheme.Douglas Walton - 2010 - Journal of Applied Logic 8 (1):1-21.
  • Evaluating Corroborative Evidence.Douglas Walton & Chris Reed - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (4):531-553.
    How should we evaluate an argument in which two witnesses independently testify to some claim? In fact what would happen is that the testimony of the second witness would be taken to corroborate that of the first to some extent, thereby boosting up the plausibility of the first argument from testimony. But does that commit the fallacy of double counting, because the second testimony is already taken as independent evidence supporting the claim? Perhaps the corroboration effect should be considered illogical, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • 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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A dialogue system specification for explanation.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Synthese 182 (3):349-374.
    This paper builds a dialectical system of explanation with speech act rules that define the kinds of moves allowed, like requesting and offering an explanation. Pre and post-condition rules for the speech acts determine when a particular speech act can be put forward as a move in the dialogue, and what type of move or moves must follow it. A successful explanation has been achieved when there has been a transfer of understanding from the party giving the explanation to the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • 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 (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme.Bart Verheij - 2001 - Argumentation 19 (3):347-371.
    Toulmin’s scheme for the layout of arguments represents an influential tool for the analysis of arguments. The scheme enriches the traditional premises-conclusion model of arguments by distinguishing additional elements, like warrant, backing and rebuttal. The present paper contains a formal elaboration of Toulmin’s scheme, and extends it with a treatment of the formal evaluation of Toulmin-style arguments, which Toulmin did not discuss at all. Arguments are evaluated in terms of a so-called dialectical interpretation of their assumptions. In such an interpretation, (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Juristische Argumentationsschemata.Luc Schneider - 2016 - Rechtstheorie 47 (2):217-244.
    The paper provides a classification of argumentation schemes used in German jurisprudence in accordance with recent developments in argumentation theory and legal methodology.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentation schemes for clinical decision support.Isabel Sassoon, Nadin Kökciyan, Sanjay Modgil & Simon Parsons - 2021 - Argument and Computation 12 (3):329-355.
    This paper demonstrates how argumentation schemes can be used in decision support systems that help clinicians in making treatment decisions. The work builds on the use of computational argumentation, a rigorous approach to reasoning with complex data that places strong emphasis on being able to justify and explain the decisions that are recommended. The main contribution of the paper is to present a novel set of specialised argumentation schemes that can be used in the context of a clinical decision support (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Reconstructing Popov v. Hayashi in a framework for argumentation with structured arguments and Dungean semantics.Henry Prakken - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):57-82.
    In this article the argumentation structure of the court’s decision in the Popov v. Hayashi case is formalised in Prakken’s (Argument Comput 1:93–124; 2010) abstract framework for argument-based inference with structured arguments. In this framework, arguments are inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules, strict and defeasible rules. Arguments can be attacked in three ways: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such conflicts, preferences may be used, which leads to three corresponding (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Law and logic: A review from an argumentation perspective.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 2015 - Artificial Intelligence 227 (C):214-245.
  • 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   22 citations  
  • An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case.Henry Prakken - 2020 - Topics in Cognitive Science 12 (4):1068-1091.
  • An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments.Henry Prakken - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (2):93-124.
    An abstract framework for structured arguments is presented, which instantiates Dung's ('On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n- Person Games', Artificial Intelligence , 77, 321-357) abstract argumentation frameworks. Arguments are defined as inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules: strict and defeasible rules. This naturally leads to three ways of attacking an argument: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such attacks, preferences may (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   115 citations  
  • Argument schemes for reasoning about trust.Simon Parsons, Katie Atkinson, Zimi Li, Peter McBurney, Elizabeth Sklar, Munindar Singh, Karen Haigh, Karl Levitt & Jeff Rowe - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (2-3):160-190.
    Trust is a natural mechanism by which an autonomous party, an agent, can deal with the inherent uncertainty regarding the behaviours of other parties and the uncertainty in the information it shares with those parties. Trust is thus crucial in any decentralised system. This paper builds on recent efforts to use argumentation to reason about trust. Specifically, a set of schemes is provided, and abstract patterns of reasoning that apply in multiple situations geared towards trust. Schemes are described in which (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • A computational model of argumentation schemes for multi-agent systems.Alison R. Panisson, Peter McBurney & Rafael H. Bordini - 2021 - Argument and Computation 12 (3):357-395.
    There are many benefits of using argumentation-based techniques in multi-agent systems, as clearly shown in the literature. Such benefits come not only from the expressiveness that argumentation-based techniques bring to agent communication but also from the reasoning and decision-making capabilities under conditions of conflicting and uncertain information that argumentation enables for autonomous agents. When developing multi-agent applications in which argumentation will be used to improve agent communication and reasoning, argumentation schemes are useful in addressing the requirements of the application domain (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Subjective logic and arguing with evidence.Nir Oren, Timothy J. Norman & Alun Preece - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):838-854.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Digital technologies and artificial intelligence’s present and foreseeable impact on lawyering, judging, policing and law enforcement.Ephraim Nissan - 2017 - AI and Society 32 (3):441-464.
    ‘AI & Law’ research has been around since the 1970s, even though with shifting emphasis. This is an overview of the contributions of digital technologies, both artificial intelligence and non-AI smart tools, to both the legal professions and the police. For example, we briefly consider text mining and case-automated summarization, tools supporting argumentation, tools concerning sentencing based on the technique of case-based reasoning, the role of abductive reasoning, research into applying AI to legal evidence, tools for fighting crime and tools (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Evaluating Practical Reasoning.Douglas Walton - 2007 - Synthese 157 (2):197-240.
    Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Logic and Philosophy of Science, 157, 2007, 197-240. Published version available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/q9402gv46t415504/fulltext.pdf.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  • Introduction to the Special Issue.Fabrizio Macagno & Alice Toniolo - 2022 - Informal Logic 42 (4):1-23.
    Douglas Walton’s work is extremely vast, multifaceted, and interdisciplinary. He developed theoretical proposals that have been used in disciplines that are not traditionally related to philosophy, such as law, education, discourse analysis, artificial intelligence, or medical communication. Through his papers and books, Walton redefined the boundaries not only of argumentation theory, but also logic and philosophy. He was a philosopher in the sense that his interest was developing theoretical models that can help explain reality, and more importantly interact with it. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Defeasible Classifications and Inferences from Definitions.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (1):34-61.
    We contend that it is possible to argue reasonably for and against arguments from classifications and definitions, provided they are seen as defeasible (subject to exceptions and critical questioning). Arguments from classification of the most common sorts are shown to be based on defeasible reasoning of various kinds represented by patterns of logical reasoning called defeasible argumentation schemes. We show how such schemes can be identified with heuristics, or short-cut solutions to a problem. We examine a variety of arguments of (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Argumentation schemes in AI: A literature review. Introduction to the special issue.Fabrizio Macagno - 2021 - Argument and Computation 12 (3):287-302.
    Argumentation schemes [1–3] are a relatively recent notion that continues an extremely ancient debate on one of the foundations of human reasoning, human comprehension, and obviously human argumentation, i.e., the topics. To understand the revolutionary nature of Walton’s work on this subject matter, it is necessary to place it in the debate that it continues and contributes to, namely a view of logic that is much broader than the formalistic perspective that has been adopted from the 20th century until nowadays. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines of performance relief.Nguyen Duy Hung, Phan Minh Thang & Phan Minh Dung - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (1):47-69.
    We present an argument-based formalism of contract dispute resolution following a modern view that the court would resolve a contract dispute by enforcing an interpretation of contract that reasonably represents the mutual intention of contract parties. Legal doctrines provide principles, rules and guidelines for the court to objectively arrive at such an interpretation. In this paper, we establish the appropriateness of the formalism by applying it to resolve disputes about performance relief with the legal doctrines of impossibility and frustration of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • A normative framework for argument quality: argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation.Ulrike Hahn & Jos Hornikx - 2016 - Synthese 193 (6):1833-1873.
    In this paper, it is argued that the most fruitful approach to developing normative models of argument quality is one that combines the argumentation scheme approach with Bayesian argumentation. Three sample argumentation schemes from the literature are discussed: the argument from sign, the argument from expert opinion, and the appeal to popular opinion. Limitations of the scheme-based treatment of these argument forms are identified and it is shown how a Bayesian perspective may help to overcome these. At the same time, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • Comparing alternatives in the law.Jaap Hage - 2004 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (3):181-225.
    This paper argues the thesis that a particular style of reasoning, qualitative comparative reasoning (QCR), plays a role in at least three areas of legal reasoning that are central in AI and law research, namely legal theory construction, case-based reasoning in the form of case comparison, and legal proof. The paper gives an informal exposition of one particular way to deal with QCR, based on the author’s previous work on reason-based logic (RBL). Then it contains a substantially adapted formalisation of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • On the graded acceptability of arguments in abstract and instantiated argumentation.Davide Grossi & Sanjay Modgil - 2019 - Artificial Intelligence 275 (C):138-173.
  • The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof.Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken & Douglas Walton - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):875-896.
    We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the procedural and dialogical aspects of argumentation. The model applies proof standards to determine the acceptability of statements on an issue-by-issue basis. The model uses different types of premises (ordinary premises, assumptions and exceptions) and information about the dialectical status of statements (stated, questioned, accepted or rejected) to allow the burden of proof to be allocated to the proponent or the respondent, as appropriate, for each premise separately. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   95 citations  
  • Advances in the Theory of Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions.David Godden & Douglas Walton - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (3):267-292.
    This paper begins a working through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation schemes and their attendant critical questions, in which we propose a number of solutions to some outstanding theoretical issues. We consider the classification of schemes, their ultimate nature, their role in argument reconstruction, their foundation as normative categories of argument, and the evaluative role of critical questions.We demonstrate the role of schemes in argument reconstruction, and defend a normative account of their nature against specific criticisms due to (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics.Bart Garssen, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren (eds.) - 2015 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag.
    How do Dutch people let each other know that they disagree? What do they say when they want to resolve their difference of opinion by way of an argumentative discussion? In what way do they convey that they are convinced by each other’s argumentation? How do they criticize each other’s argumentative moves? Which words and expressions do they use in these endeavors? By answering these questions this short essay provides a brief inventory of the language of argumentation in Dutch.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Assessing the epistemic quality of democratic decision-making in terms of adequate support for conclusions.Henrik Friberg-Fernros & Johan Karlsson Schaffer - 2017 - Social Epistemology 31 (3):251-265.
    How can we assess the epistemic quality of democratic decision-making? Sceptics doubt such assessments are possible, as they must rely on controversial substantive standards of truth and rightness. Challenging that scepticism, this paper suggests a procedure-independent standard for assessing the epistemic quality of democratic decision-making by evaluating whether it is adequately supported by reasons. Adequate support for conclusion is a necessary aspect of epistemic quality for any epistemic justification of democracy, though particularly relevant to theories that emphasize public deliberation. Finding (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Research in progress: report on the ICAIL 2017 doctoral consortium.Maria Dymitruk, Réka Markovich, Rūta Liepiņa, Mirna El Ghosh, Robert van Doesburg, Guido Governatori & Bart Verheij - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 26 (1):49-97.
    This paper arose out of the 2017 international conference on AI and law doctoral consortium. There were five students who presented their Ph.D. work, and each of them has contributed a section to this paper. The paper offers a view of what topics are currently engaging students, and shows the diversity of their interests and influences.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract.Phan Minh Dung & Phan Minh Thang - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (3):167-182.
    To create a programming environment for contract dispute resolution, we propose an extension of assumption-based argumentation into modular assumption-based argumentation in which different modules of argumentation representing different knowledge bases for reasoning about beliefs and facts and for representation and reasoning with the legal doctrines could be built and assembled together. A distinct novel feature of modular argumentation in compare with other modular logic-based systems like Prolog is that it allows references to different semantics in the same module at the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Solving a Murder Case by Asking Critical Questions: An Approach to Fact-Finding in Terms of Argumentation and Story Schemes. [REVIEW]Floris Bex & Bart Verheij - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (3):325-353.
    In this paper, we look at reasoning with evidence and facts in criminal cases. We show how this reasoning may be analysed in a dialectical way by means of critical questions that point to typical sources of doubt. We discuss critical questions about the evidential arguments adduced, about the narrative accounts of the facts considered, and about the way in which the arguments and narratives are connected in an analysis. Our treatment shows how two different types of knowledge, represented as (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Before and after Dung: Argumentation in AI and Law.T. J. M. Bench-Capon - 2020 - Argument and Computation 11 (1-2):221-238.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Designing Critical Questions for Argumentation Schemes.Michael D. Baumtrog - 2021 - Argumentation 35 (4):629-643.
    This paper offers insights into the nature and design of critical questions as they are found in argumentation schemes. In the first part of the paper, I address some general concerns regarding their purpose and formulation. These include a discussion of their evaluative function, their relationship with the patterns of reasoning they accompany, as well as the differing formulations of critical questions currently on offer. I argue that the purpose of critical questions for humans ought to be to provide the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games: 25 years later.Pietro Baroni, Francesca Toni & Bart Verheij - 2020 - Argument and Computation 11 (1-2):1-14.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning.Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (1):93-131.
    In this paper we apply a general account of practical reasoning to arguing about legal cases. In particular, we provide a reconstruction of the reasoning of the majority and dissenting opinions for a particular well-known case from property law. This is done through the use of Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) agents to replicate the contrasting views involved in the actual decision. This reconstruction suggests that the reasoning involved can be separated into three distinct levels: factual and normative levels and a level connecting (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • In memoriam Douglas N. Walton: the influence of Doug Walton on AI and law.Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Floris Bex, Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken, Giovanni Sartor & Bart Verheij - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 28 (3):281-326.
    Doug Walton, who died in January 2020, was a prolific author whose work in informal logic and argumentation had a profound influence on Artificial Intelligence, including Artificial Intelligence and Law. He was also very interested in interdisciplinary work, and a frequent and generous collaborator. In this paper seven leading researchers in AI and Law, all past programme chairs of the International Conference on AI and Law who have worked with him, describe his influence on their work.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Computational Representation of Practical Argument.Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon & Peter McBurney - 2006 - Synthese 152 (2):157-206.
    In this paper we consider persuasion in the context of practical reasoning, and discuss the problems associated with construing reasoning about actions in a manner similar to reasoning about beliefs. We propose a perspective on practical reasoning as presumptive justification of a course of action, along with critical questions of this justification, building on the account of Walton. From this perspective, we articulate an interaction protocol, which we call PARMA, for dialogues over proposed actions based on this theory. We outline (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   34 citations  
  • Argumentation schemes in AI and Law.Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon - 2021 - Argument and Computation 12 (3):417-434.
    In this paper we describe the impact that Walton’s conception of argumentation schemes had on AI and Law research. We will discuss developments in argumentation in AI and Law before Walton’s schemes became known in that community, and the issues that were current in that work. We will then show how Walton’s schemes provided a means of addressing all of those issues, and so supplied a unifying perspective from which to view argumentation in AI and Law.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations