Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation

Journal of Logic and Computation

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1009-1040

  Prakken, Henry ^a,b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Defeasible reasoning; Dialogue games; Persuasion

Indexed keywords

FORMAL LOGIC; NETWORK PROTOCOLS; SET THEORY;

ARGUMENTATION; DEFEASIBLE REASONING; DIALOGUE GAMES; PERSUASION;

GAME THEORY;

EID: 29144432372     PISSN: 0955792X     EISSN: 1465363X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/logcom/exi046     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol. A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable argument. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34, 197-216, 2002.
2. L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, and S. Parsons. Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, pp. 31-38, Boston, MA, 2000.
3. I. Angelelli. The techniques of disputation in the history of logic. The Journal of Philosophy, 67, 800-815, 1970.
4. T. Ballmer and W. Brennenstuhl. Speech Act Classification. A Study in the Lexical Classification of English Speech Activity Verbs. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1981.
5. T.J.M. Bench-Capon, T. Geldard, and P.H. Leng. A method for the computational modelling of dialectical argument with dialogue games. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 8, 233-254, 2000.
6. A. Bondarenko, P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski, and F. Toni. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93, 63-101, 1997.
7. G. Brewka. Reasoning about priorities in default logic. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 247-260, 1994.
8. G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 11, 257-282, 2001.
9. L. Carlson. Dialogue Games: an Approach to Discourse Analysis. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1983.
10. P.M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321-357, 1995.
11. H. Geffner and J. Pearl. Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 53, 209-244, 1992.
12. T.F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game: an exercise in computational dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2, 239-292, 1994.
13. T.F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1995.
14. J.C. Hage, R.E. Leenes, and A.R. Lodder. Hard cases: a procedural approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2, 113-166, 1994.
15. C.L. Hamblin. Fallacies. Methuen, London, 1970.
16. C.L. Hamblin. Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria, 37, 130-155, 1971.
17. E.C.W. Krabbe. The problem of retraction in critical discussion. Synthese, 127, 141-159, 2001.
18. A.R. Lodder. DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Law and Philosophy Library. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1999.
19. P. Lorenzen and K. Lorenz. Dialogische Logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1978.
20. R.P. Loui. Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 14, 1-38, 1998.
21. J.D. Mackenzie. Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 117-133, 1979.
22. J.D. Mackenzie. Four dialogue systems. Studia Logica, 51, 567-583, 1990.
23. P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 13, 315-343, 2002.
24. S. Parsons, M. Wooldridge, and L. Amgoud. On the outcomes of formal interagent dialogues. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-03), pp. 616-623, 2003.
25. S. Parsons, M. Wooldridge, and L. Amgoud. Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 347-376, 2003.
26. J.L. Pollock. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11, 481-518, 1987.
27. J.L. Pollock. Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.
28. H. Prakken. On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence (JELIA'2000), Volume 1919 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 224-238, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2000.
29. H. Prakken. Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 119-128. ACM Press, New York, 2001.
30. H. Prakken. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese, 127, 187-219, 2001.
31. H. Prakken and G.A.W. Vreeswijk. Logics for defeasible argumentation. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 4, D. Gabbay and F. Günthner, eds, pp. 219-318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, second edition, 2002.
32. R. Reiter. Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Describing and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001.
33. G.A.W. Vreeswijk. Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence, 90, 225-279, 1997.
34. D. N. Walton and E. C. W. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1995.