Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 273–295 | Cite as

Persuasion Dialogue in Online Dispute Resolution

  • Douglas Walton
  • David M. Godden
Article

Abstract

In this paper we show how dialogue-based theories of argumentation can contribute to the construction of effective systems of dispute resolution. Specifically we consider the role of persuasion in online dispute resolution by showing how persuasion dialogues can be functionally embedded in negotiation dialogues, and how negotiation dialogues can shift to persuasion dialogues. We conclude with some remarks on how persuasion dialogues might be modelled is such a way as to allow them to be implemented in a mechanical or computerized system of dialogue or dialogue management.

Keywords

ADR alternative dispute resolution argument argumentation dialogue negotiation ODR online dispute resolution persuasion persuasion dialogue 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research for this paper was made possible by a Research Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

References

  1. Bench-Capon T. J. M. (2002). Agreeing to Differ: Persuasive Dialogue Between Parties with Different Values. Informal Logic 22:231–245Google Scholar
  2. Craver C. (1994). Effective Legal Negotiation and Settlement. Michie Co.: Charlottesville, VAGoogle Scholar
  3. Eemeren F. H. van and Grootendorst R. (1984). Speech Acts in Communicative Discussions. Dordrecht, ForisGoogle Scholar
  4. Eemeren F. H. van and Grootendorst R. (1987). Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation 1:283–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eemeren F.H. van and Grootendorst R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ, ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldberg S., Sander F. and Roberts N. (1992). Dispute Resolution, Negotiation, Mediation and Other Processes. Boston, Little Brown and CompanyGoogle Scholar
  7. Grice, Paul. ([1967] 1989). Logic and Conversation. In Studies in the Way of Words, 22–40. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Hamblin C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London, MethuenGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamblin C. L. (1971). Mathematical Models of Dialogue. Theoria 37:130–155MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hitchcock, D., P. McBurney and S. Parsons. (2002). A Framework for Deliberation Dialogues. In Hansen H. V., Tindale C. W., Blair J. A. and Johnson R. H. (eds.), The Proceedings of Argument and Its Applications: Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA 2001). OSSA: Windsor, ON compact disk. Available on Peter McBurney’s web page: http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/∼ ∼peter/
  11. Jacobs, S. Jackson, S., et al. (1987). Ideal Argument in the Real World: Making do in Mediation. In Wenzel, J. (ed.) The Proceedings of Argument and Critical Practices: Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. Speech Communication Association: Annandale, VA: 291–298.Google Scholar
  12. Katsh Ethan and Janet Rifkin (2001). Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace. San Francisco, Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
  13. Leeson S. and Johnson B. (1988). Ending it: Dispute Resolution in America. Cincinnati, Anderson PublishingGoogle Scholar
  14. Lodder Arno R., Setphanie H. Bol (2004). Towards an online negotiation environment: legal principles, technical requirements, and the need for close cooperation. In: Lodder A. et al. (eds) Essays on Legal and Technical Aspects of Online Dispute Resolution. Amsterdam, CEDIRE: Centre for Electronic Dispute Resolution, pp. 7–13Google Scholar
  15. Mochol M. (2004). Discourse Support Design Patterns. In: Lodder A. et al. (eds) Essays on Legal and Technical Aspects of Online Dispute Resolution. Amsterdam, CEDIRE: Centre for Electronic Dispute Resolution, pp. 61–74Google Scholar
  16. Patterson Susan and Grant Seabolt (2001). Essentials of Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2nd ed. Dallas, Pearson PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  17. Prakken, H. (1991). On Formalizing Burden of Proof in Legal Argument. In Proceedings of Legal Knowledge-Based Systems: JURIX 99, the Twelfth Conference, 85–97. Gerard Noodt Instituut: Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  18. Reed, C. (1998). Dialogue Frames in Agent Communication. In Demazeau, T. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, 246–253. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rule Colin (2002). Online Dispute Resolution for Business: For E-commerce, B2B, Consumer, Employment, Insurance, and Other Commercial Conflicts. San Francisco, Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
  20. Walton Douglas (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  21. Walton Douglas. (1998). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto, University of Toronto PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Walton, Douglas. (1999). Dialectical Relevance in Persuasion Dialogue. Informal Logic 19: 119–143 Available on Douglas Walton’s web page: http://www.io.uwinnipeg.ca/walton/p_and_p.htm
  23. Walton Douglas N. and Krabbe E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, State University of New York PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WinnipegWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations