Handbook of Formal Argumentation
London, England: College Publications (2018)
Abstract
The Handbook of Formal Argumentation is a community effort aimed at providing a comprehensive and up-to-date view of the state of the art and current trends in the lively research field of formal argumentation. The first volume of the Handbook is organised into five parts, containing nineteen chapters in all, each written by leading experts in the field. The first part provides a general and historical perspective on the field. The second part gives a comprehensive coverage of the argumentation formalisms available in the literature at various levels of abstraction. The third part is devoted to cover some of the many dialogical aspects of argumentation, while the fourth one deals with algorithmic, computational and implementation issues. Finally, the fifth part provides some deeper analyses on the previously introduced topics. The Handbook of Formal Argumentation is an open-ended initiative of which the present volume is the first outcome. Further volumes are planned to cover topics not included in the present one and the initiative is conceived to grow by the support and feeding it receives from the community members.Author's Profile
My notes
Similar books and articles
Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Why Logic Doesn 't Matter in the (Philosophical) Study of Argumentation'.Tim6 Heysse - 1997 - Argumentation 11 (2):211-224.
Mencius’s Strategies of Political Argumentation.Minghui Xiong & Linqiong Yan - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (3):365-389.
Introduction to structured argumentation.Philippe Besnard, Alejandro Garcia, Anthony Hunter, Sanjay Modgil, Henry Prakken, Guillermo Simari & Francesca Toni - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (1):1-4.
Why Logic Doesn‘t Matter in the Study of Argumentation.Heysse Tim - 1997 - Argumentation 11 (2):211-224.
Statutory Interpretation as Argumentation.Douglas Walton, Giovanni Sartor & Fabrizio Macagno - 2018 - In Colin Aitken, Amalia Amaya, Kevin D. Ashley, Carla Bagnoli, Giorgio Bongiovanni, Bartosz Brożek, Cristiano Castelfranchi, Samuele Chilovi, Marcello Di Bello, Jaap Hage, Kenneth Einar Himma, Lewis A. Kornhauser, Emiliano Lorini, Fabrizio Macagno, Andrei Marmor, J. J. Moreso, Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco, Antonino Rotolo, Giovanni Sartor, Burkhard Schafer, Chiara Valentini, Bart Verheij, Douglas Walton & Wojciech Załuski (eds.), Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Cambridge University Press. pp. 519-560.
Formalizing Informal Logic.Douglas Walton & Thomas F. Gordon - 2015 - Informal Logic 35 (4):508-538.
On topology-related properties of abstract argumentation semantics. A correction and extension to Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method.Pietro Baroni, Massimiliano Giacomin & Beishui Liao - 2014 - Artificial Intelligence 212 (C):104-115.
Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory.Frans Hendrik van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.) - 2015 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
On the Input/Output behavior of argumentation frameworks.Pietro Baroni, Guido Boella, Federico Cerutti, Massimiliano Giacomin, Leendert van der Torre & Serena Villata - 2014 - Artificial Intelligence 217 (C):144-197.
Virtues of visual argumentation: How pictures make the importance and strength of an argument salient.Jens E. Kjeldsen - unknown
Comparing logic programming and formal argumentation; the case of ideal and eager semantics.Martin Caminada, Sri Harikrishnan & Samy Sá - 2022 - Argument and Computation 13 (1):93-120.
Reconstructing complex analogy argumentation in judicial decisions: A pragma-dialectical perspective.Harm Kloosterhuis - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):471-483.
Analytics
Added to PP
2021-11-17
Downloads
27 (#433,061)
6 months
10 (#87,923)
2021-11-17
Downloads
27 (#433,061)
6 months
10 (#87,923)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Artificial intelligence as law. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 28 (2):181-206.
Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Amsterdam (Netherlands): pp. 769-777.
Belief Revision and Computational Argumentation: A Critical Comparison.Pietro Baroni, Eduardo Fermé, Massimiliano Giacomin & Guillermo Ricardo Simari - 2022 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 31 (4):555-589.
References found in this work
A useful four-valued logic.N. D. Belnap - 1977 - In J. M. Dunn & G. Epstein (eds.), Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logic. D. Reidel.
From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation.Else Margarete Barth & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1982 - Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning.A. Bondarenko, P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski & F. Toni - 1997 - Artificial Intelligence 93 (1-2):63-101.
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.