The Carneades Argumentation Framework: Using Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

Volumn 144, Issue , 2006, Pages 195-207

  Gordon, Thomas F ^a   Walton, Douglas ^b  

^a FRAUNHOFER FOKUS   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WINNIPEG   (Canada)

Author keywords

Argument Evaluation; Argumentation Framework; Argumentation Schemes; Critical Questions

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENT EVALUATIONS; ARGUMENT STRUCTURES; ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS; ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES; BURDEN OF PROOF; CRITICAL QUESTIONS;

EID: 84940538604     PISSN: 09226389     EISSN: 18798314     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. K. Freeman and A. M. Farley. A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3-4):163-197, 1996.
2. A. C. Hastings. A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. PhD thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 1963.
3. D. Walton. Appeal to Expert Opinion. Penn State Press, University Park, 1997.
4. F. Bex, H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D. Walton. Towards a formal account of reasoning with evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalizations. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11(2-3), 2003.
5. T. F. Gordon. A computational model of argument for legal reasoning support systems. In P. E. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon, editors, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, IAAIL Workshop Series, pages 53-64. Wolf Legal Publishers, 2005.
6. D. Walton and T. F. Gordon. Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In P. E. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon, editors, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, IAAILWorkshop Series, pages 103-111, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 2005.Wolf Legal Publishers.
7. P. Edwards. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, volume 1. Macmillian and Free Press, 1972.
8. H. Prakken. From logic to dialectic in legal argument. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 165-174. Maryland, 1995.
9. P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321-357, 1995.
10. T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The semantic web. Scientific American, 284(5):34-43, May 2001.
11. D. Walton. Argument Structure : a Pragmatic Theory. Toronto studies in philosophy. University of Toronto Press, Toronto ; Buffalo, 1996. Douglas Walton. ill. ; 24 cm.
12. J. L. Pollock. How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence, 57:1-42, 1992.
13. B. Verheij. Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. Ph.d., Universiteit Maastricht, 1996.
14. J. Hage. A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3-4):199-273, 1996.
15. T. F. Gordon and N. Karacapilidis. The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 10-18. Melbourne, Australia, 1997.
16. T. F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game-an exercise in computational dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2(4):239-292, 1994.
17. S. E. Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, 1958.
18. D. Walton. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum, 1996.
19. D. Walton. Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law. Springer, 2005.
20. B. Verheij. Virtual Arguments. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, 2005.
21. R. Kelsey, W. Clinger, and J. Rees. Revised (5) report on the algorithmic language Scheme. Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation, 11(1):7-105, August 1998.
22. R. Milner, M. Tofte, R. Harper, and D. MacQueen. The Definition of Standard ML, (Revised). MIT Press, 1997.
23. T. F. Gordon and D.Walton. Pierson vs. Post revisted-a reconstruction using the Carneades Argumentation Framework. In P. E. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon, editors, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 06), Liverpool, 2006. IOS Press.