Argumentation without arguments

Argumentation

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 171-184

  Prakken, Henry ^a,b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Abduction; Arguments; Coherence; Dialogue; Inferential structures; Logic

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955822947     PISSN: 0920427X     EISSN: 15728374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-011-9208-9     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bex, F. J. 2011. Arguments, stories and criminal evidence. A formal hybrid theory. Dordrecht: Springer Law and Philosophy Library no 92.
2. Bex, F. J., and H. Prakken. 2008. Investigating stories in a formal dialogue game. In Computational models of argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2008, 73-84, ed. T. J. M. Bench-Capon, and P. E. Dunne. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
3. Console, L., D. T. Dupré, and P. Torasso. 1991. On the relationship between abduction and deduction. Journal of Logic and Computation 1: 661-690.
4. Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321-357.
5. Gordon, T. F. 1995. The pleadings game. An artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
6. Hamblin, C. L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.
7. Hamblin, C. L. 1971. Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37: 130-155.
8. Joseph, S. 2010. Coherence-based computational agency. Doctoral dissertation Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.
9. Joseph, S., and Prakken, H. 2009. Coherence-driven argumentation to norm consensus. In Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, 58-67. New York: ACM Press.
10. Lodder, A. R. 1999. DiaLaw. On legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Law and Philosophy Library, no. 42.
11. Loui, R. P. 1998. Process and policy: Resource-bounded nondemonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14: 1-38.
12. Mackenzie, J. D. 1979. Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 117-133.
13. Modgil, S., and Caminada, M. 2009. Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan, and G. R. Simari, 105-129. Berlin: Springer.
14. Parsons, S., M. Wooldridge, and L. Amgoud. 2003. Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13: 347-376.
15. Prakken, H. 2005. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15: 1009-1040.
16. Prakken, H. 2006. Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21: 163-188. Revised and condensed version in Rahwan & Simari (2009), pp. 281-300.
17. Prakken, H. 2008. A formal model of adjudication dialogues. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16: 305-328.
18. Prakken, H. 2010. On the nature of argument schemes. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. An examination of douglas Walton's theories of reasoning and argument, ed. C. A. Reed, and C. Tindale, 167-185. London: College Publications.
19. Prakken, H., and G. Sartor. 1997. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7: 25-75.
20. Rahwan, I., and G. R. Simari (eds.). 2009. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Berlin: Springer.
21. Thagard, P. 2002. Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Walton, D. N. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Walton, D. N., and E. C. W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany (New York): State University of New York Press.
24. Woods, J., and D. N. Walton. 1978. Arresting circles in formal dialogues. Journal of Philosophical Logic 7: 73-90.