Skip to main content

Relating Protocols For Dynamic Dispute With Logics For Defeasible Argumentation

Abstract

This article investigates to what extent protocols for dynamicdisputes, i.e., disputes in which the information base can vary at differentstages, can be justified in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Firsta general framework is formulated for dialectical proof theories for suchlogics. Then this framework is adapted to serve as a framework for protocols fordynamic disputes, after which soundness and fairness properties are formulated for such protocols relative to dialectical proof theories. It then turns out that certaintypes of protocols that are perfectly fine with a static information base, arenot sound or fair in a dynamic setting. Finally, a natural dynamic protocolis defined for which soundness and fairness can be established.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

REFERENCES

  1. Aleven, V. and K. Ashley: 1997,'Evaluating a Learning Environment for Case-Based Argumentation Skills’, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM Press, New York, pp. 170-179.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bench-Capon, T.: 1998,'Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game’, in Legal Knowledge-Based Systems. JURIX: The Eleventh Conference, Gerard Noodt Instituut, Nijmegen, pp. 5-19.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bondarenko, A., P. Dung, R. Kowalski, and F. Toni: 1997,'An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence 93, 63-101.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brewka, G.: 2000,'Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus’, Journal of Logic and Computation. To appear.

  5. Dung, P.: 1994,'Logic Programming as Dialog Game’, Unpublished paper, Division of Computer Science, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dung, P.: 1995,'On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n-Person Games’, Artificial Intelligence 77, 321-357.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Garcia, A., G. Simari, and C. Chesñevar: 1998,'An Argumentative Framework for Reasoning with Inconsistent and Incomplete Information’, in Proceedings of the ECAI'98 Workshop on Practical Reasoning and Rationality, Brighton, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gordon, T.: 1995, The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gordon, T. and N. Karaçapilidis: 1997,'The Zeno Argumentation Framework’, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York: ACM Press, pp. 10-18.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gordon, T., N. Karaçapilidis, H. Voss, and A. Zauke: 1997,'Computer-Mediated Cooperative Spatial Planning’, in H. Timmermans (ed.), Decision Support Systems in Urban Planning. E & FN SPON Publishers, London, pp. 299-309.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hage, J., R. Leenes, and A. Lodder: 1994,'Hard Cases: a Procedural Approach’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 2, 113-166.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hamblin, C.: 1971,'Mathematical Models of Dialogue’, Theoria 37, 130-155.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hintikka, J.: 1999,'Is Logic the Key to All Good Reasoning?’, in Inquiry as Inquiry: A Logic of Scientific Discovery, Vol. 5 of Jaakko Hintikka Selected Papers, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, pp. 1-24.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jakobovits, H. and D. Vermeir: 1999,'Dialectic Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks’, in Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM Press, New York, pp. 53-62.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kraus, S., K. Sycara, and A. Evenchik: 1998,'Reaching Agreements Through Argumentation: A Logical Model and Implementation’, Artificial Intelligence 104, 1-69.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lodder, A.: 1999, DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Loui, R.: 1994,'Argument and Arbitration Games’, in Working Notes of the AAAI-94 Workshop on Computational Dialectics.

  18. Loui, R.: 1998,'Process and Policy: Resource-Bounded Non-Demonstrative Reasoning’, Computational Intelligence 14, 1-38.

    Google Scholar 

  19. MacKenzie, J.: 1990,'Four Dialogue Systems’, Studia Logica 51, 567-583.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Parsons, S., C. Sierra, and N. Jennings: 1998,'Agents that Reason and Negotiate by Arguing’, Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 261-292.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pollock, J.: 1992,'How to Reason Defeasibly’, Artificial Intelligence 57, 1-42.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Prakken, H. and G. Sartor: 1997,'Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities’, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25-75.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Prakken, H. and G. Vreeswijk: 2000,'Logical Systems for Defeasible argumentation’, in D. Gabbay (ed.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. 2nd edn, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, to appear.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Reiter, R.: 1999, Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Describing and Implementing Dynamical Systems, Book draft, available at http://www.cs.toronto.edu/cogrobo/.

  25. Simari, G. and R. Loui: 1992,'A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Argumentation and its Implementation’, Artificial Intelligence 53, 125-157.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Suthers, D., A. Weiner, J. Connelly, and M. Paolucci: 1995,'Belvedere: Engaging Students in Critical Discussion of Science and Public Policy Issues’, in Proceedings of the Seventh World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 266-273.

  27. Vreeswijk, G.: 1995,'The Computational Value of Debate in Defeasible Reasoning’, Argumentation 9, 305-341.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Vreeswijk, G.: 1997,'Abstract Argumentation Systems’, Artificial Intelligence 90, 225-279.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Vreeswijk, G.: 2000,'Representation of Formal Dispute with a Standing Order’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 8(2), 205-231.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Walton, D.: 1990,'What is Reasoning? What is an Argument?’, Journal of Philosophy 87, 399-419.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Walton, D.: 1999,'Applying Labelled Deductive Systems and Multi-Agent Systems to Source-Based Argumentation’, Journal of Logic and Computation 9, 63-80.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Walton, D. and E. Krabbe: 1995, Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prakken, H. Relating Protocols For Dynamic Dispute With Logics For Defeasible Argumentation. Synthese 127, 187–219 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010322504453

Download citation

Keywords

  • Static Information
  • General Framework
  • Information Base
  • Natural Dynamic
  • Dynamic Setting