Abstract
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 as the making of a proposal by one of the parties. What is required are the conditions that (1) the move fit the requirements of the argumentation scheme for practical reasoning, and (2) the premises are propositions describing common goals of both parties or propositions that they reasonably consider means to achieve these goals. The analysis goes beyond the standard speech act approach by specifying not only the normative requirements for making a well-formed proposal, but also the requirements for responding to it by questioning or criticizing it, and the requirements for defending it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aakhus, M. (2005). The Act and Activity of Proposing in Deliberation, paper presented at the ALTA Conference, August, 2005.
Anonymous (no author given) (2005). Weight Ranking on Schools Can Hurt, The Advertiser, September 21, 2005, p. 17
Aristotle (1928). Nicomachean Ethics, in The Works of Aristotle Translated into English, ed. Ross, W. D., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aristotle (1939). Topics, trans. E. S. Forster, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Atkinson, K. (2005). What Should We do? Computational Representation of Persuasive Argument in Practical Reasoning. Ph.D. Thesis, Liverpool, University of Liverpool.
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., and McBurney, P. (2004). Justifying Practical Reasoning. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004), 87–90. ECAI 2004, Valencia, Spain
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., and McBurney, P. (2004a). PARMENIDES: Facilitating Democratic Debate, Electronic Government. In Traunmuller, R. (ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), 3183. Third International Conference on eGovernment (EGOV 2004), DEXA 2004, Zaragoza, Spain.
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., and McBurney, P. (2004b). A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action. In Rahwan, I., Moraitis, P., and Reed, C. (eds.), Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, 149–161. Springer: Berlin.
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., and McBurney, P. (2005). Agent Decision Making Using Argumentation About Actions, Technical Report ULCS-05–006. Computer Science Department: University of Liverpool.
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., and McBurney, P. (2005a). Persuasive Political Argument. In Grasso, F., Reed, C., and Kibble, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2005), 44–45. Edinburgh, Scotland
Bach, K. (1998). Speech Acts. In Craig, E. (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: http://www.online.sfsu.edu/kbach/spchacts.html
Barnes J. (1980). Aristotle and the Methods of Ethics. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 34:490–511
Bratman M. (1987). Intention, Plans and Practical Reason. Cambridge Mass, Harvard University Press
Bratman M. E., Israel D. J., Pollack M. E. (1988). Plans and Resource-bounded Practical Reasoning. Computational Intelligence 4:349–355
Burke, N. (2005). Weight Watch Plan to Provide Details of a Child’s Fitness, The Advertiser, September 17, 2005, p. 2.
Fisher R., Ury W., Patton B. (1983). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. New York, Penguin Books
Gordon T. F. (1995). The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Dordrecht, Kluwer
Gordon, T. F. and Karacapilidis, N. (1997). The Zeno Argumentation Framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10–18. Melbourne, Australia.
Gordon T. F., Richter G. (2002). Discourse Support Systems for Deliberative Democracy. In: Traunmuller R., Lenk L. (eds), eGovernment: State of the Art and Perspectives (EGOV). Aix-en-Provence, Springer Verlag, pp. 248–255
Gordon, T. F. and Walton, D. (2005). Critical Questions in Computational Models of Legal Argument, International Workshop on Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, 103–111. IAAIL Workshop Series, Wolf Legal Publishers.
Hamblin C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London, Methuen
Hamblin C. L. (1987). Imperatives. Oxford, Blackwell
Hitchcock D. (2002). Pollock on Practical Reasoning. Informal Logic 22:247–256
Hitchcock, D., McBurney, P., and Parsons, P. (2005). A Framework for Deliberation Dialogues, Argument and Its Applications. In Hansen, H. V., Tindale, C. W., Blair, J. A., and Johnson, R. H. (eds.) (2001), Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA 2001). Also available on Peter McBurney’s web page (2005) at the University of Liverpool, Department of Computer Science: http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/peter/
Horty J., Belnap N. D. (1995). The Deliberative Stit: A Study of Action, Omission, Ability, and Obligation, Journal of Philosophical Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 24:583–644
Hulstijn, J. (2000). Dialogue Models for Inquiry and Transaction. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiteit Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Jonsen A. R., Toulmin S. (1989). The Abuse of Casuistry. Berkeley, University of California Press
Kauffeld, F. J. (1995). The Persuasive Force of Arguments on Behalf of Proposals, Amsterdam, SicSat, Analysis and Evaluation. In Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. 2.
Kauffeld F. J. (1998). Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing. Argumentation 12:245–266
Krabbe E. C. W. (1999). Profiles of Dialogue. In: Gerbrandy J., Marx M., de Rijke M., Venema Yde (eds), JFAK: Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of his 50th Birthday. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, pp. 25–36
Krabbe E. C. W. (2005). Fundamental Circularities in the Theory of Argumentation. In: Hitchcock D. (eds), The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University 18–21 May, 2005. Hamilton, Ontario, pp. 286–294
Lascher E. L. (1999). The Politics of Automobile Insurance Reform: Ideas, Institutions, and Public Policy in North America. Washington, Georgetown University Press
Paglieri F., Castelfranchi C. (2005). Arguments as Belief Structures. In: Hitchcock D. (eds), The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University 18–21 May, 2005. Hamilton, Ontario, pp. 356–367
Pollock J. L. (1994). Justification and defeat. Artificial Intelligence 67: 377–407
Pollock J. L. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry. Cambridge, Mass, The MIT Press
Prakken, H., Reed, C., and Walton D. (2005). Dialogues about the Burden of Proof. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 115–124, Held June 6–11, 2005. The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM): Bologna, Italy, New York.
Reed, C. (1998). Dialogue Frames in Agent Communication. In Demazeau, Y. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, 246–253. IEEE Press.
Reed C., Norman T. J. (2003). Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation. Dordrecht, Kluwer
Reed, C. and Rowe, G. (2002). Araucaria: Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagramming and XML, Technical Report, Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee. Available at http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/
Reed, C. and Rowe, G. (2002). Araucaria, Version 3, User Manual. Available at http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/
Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2003). Diagramming Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions. In van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, A.J., Willard C. A., and Henkemans, F. S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, 881–885. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Searle J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Searle J. (2001). Rationality in Action. Cambridge, Mass, The MIT Press
Segerberg K. (1984). Towards an Exact Philosophy of Action. Topoi 3:75–83
Singh M. P. (1999). A Semantics for Speech Acts. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 8:47–71
Singh M. P. (1997). Commitments in the Architecture of a Limited, Rational Agent. In: Cavedon L. (eds), Intelligent Agents Systems: Theoretical and Practical Issues. Berlin, Springer, pp. 72–87
Vreeswijk G. A. W. (1997). Abstract Argumentation Systems. Artificial Intelligence 90:225–279
von Wright G. H. (1972). On So-Called Practical Inference. Acta Sociologica 15:39–53
Walton, D. (1990). Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven, Knowledge-Based, Action-Guiding Argumentation. Rowman & Littlefield: Savage, Maryland.
Walton D. (1990a). What is Reasoning? What is an Argument?. Journal of Philosophy 87:399–419
Walton, D. (1996) Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, N.J
Walton D. (1998). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. University of Toronto Press: Toronto
Walton D. (2003). Is There a Burden of Questioning?. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11:1–43
Walton, D. (2004). Criteria of Rationality for Evaluating Democratic Public Rhetoric. In Fontana, B., Nederman, C. J., and Reimer, G. (eds.), Talking Democracy University Park, 295–330. Penn Sate Press.
Walton, D. (2005). Evaluating Practical Reasoning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Norms, Knowledge and Reasoning in Technology Held at Huis Elzendaal, Boxmeer, the Netherlands, June 3–4, 2005. Eindhoven, Technical University of Eindhoven.
Walton, D. and Godden, D. (2005). The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes, The Uses of Argument. In Hitchcock, D. and Farr, D. (eds.), Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, 476–484. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Walton D., Krabbe E. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue. Albany, State University of New York Press
Wooldridge M. (2000). Reasoning about Rational Agents. Cambridge Mass, The MIT Press
Wooldridge M. (2002). MultiAgent Systems. Chichester, Wiley
Yankelovich, D. (1992). A Widening Expert/Public Opinion Gap, 20–27, Challenge, May–June, 1992.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Walton, D. How to make and defend a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. Artif Intell Law 14, 177–239 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-006-9025-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-006-9025-x