The Toulmin argument model in artificial intelligence or: How semi-formal, defeasible argumentation schemes creep into logic

Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 219-238

  Verheij, Bart ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960143776     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_11     Document Type: Chapter

References (33)

1. K. D. Ashley. Modeling legal argument. Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. The MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts), 1990.
2. T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429-448, 2003.
3. 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.
4. E. T. Feteris. Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1999.
5. T. F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1995.
6. J. C. Hage. A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:199-273, 1996.
7. D. L. Hitchcock and B. Verheij, editors. Arguing on the Toulmin Model. New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation (Argumentation Library, Volume 10). Springer-Verlag, Dordrecht, 2006.
8. P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, and C. S. Carr. Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Springer-Verlag, London, 2002.
9. R. P. Loui. Hart's critics on defeasible concepts and ascriptivism. In The Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Proceedings of the Conference, pages 21-30. ACM, New York (New York), 1995.
10. R. P. Loui and J. Norman. Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3:159-189, 1995.
11. J. L. Pollock. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11:481-518, 1987.
12. J. L. Pollock. Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. The MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts), 1995.
13. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:331-368, 1996. (Pubitemid 126706892)
14. C. Reed and G. Rowe. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools, 13(4):961-980, 2004. (Pubitemid 40111952)
15. R. Reiter. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81-132, 1980.
16. S. J. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence. A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (New Jersey), 2003.
17. G. R. Simari and R. P. Loui. A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its applications. Artificial Intelligence, 53:125-157, 1992.
18. S. E. Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1958.
19. S. E. Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Updated Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
20. S. E. Toulmin. Reasoning in theory and practice. In D. L. Hitchcock and B. Verheij, editors, Arguing on the Toulmin Model. New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation (Argumentation Library, Volume 10)., pages 25-30. Springer-Verlag, Dordrecht, 2006.
21. F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. Reconstructing Argumentative Dialogue. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa (Alabama), 1993.
22. F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, and F. Snoeck Henkemans. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (New Jersey), 1996.
23. B. Verheij. DefLog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):319-346, 2003.
24. B. Verheij. Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11(1-2):167-195, 2003. (Pubitemid 40672193)
25. B. Verheij. Evaluating arguments based on toulmin's scheme. Argumentation, 19(3):347-371, 2005. (Pubitemid 43296532)
26. B. Verheij. Virtual arguments. On the design of argument assistants for lawyers and other arguers. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, 2005.
27. B. Verheij. Argumentation support software: Boxes-and-arrows and beyond. Law, Probability and Risk, 6:187-208, 2007.
28. B. Verheij, J. C. Hage, and H. J. van den Herik. An integrated view on rules and principles. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6(1):3-26, 1998. (Pubitemid 128512374)
29. G. A. W. Vreeswijk. Studies in defeasible argumentation. 1993.
30. G. A. W. Vreeswijk. Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence, 90:225-279, 1997. (Pubitemid 127398371)
31. D. N.Walton. Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (New Jersey), 1996.
32. D. N. Walton. The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1998.
33. D. N. Walton and E. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (New York), 1995.