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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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.
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.
Bondarenko, A., P. Dung, R. Kowalski, and F. Toni: 1997,'An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence 93, 63-101.
Brewka, G.: 2000,'Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus’, Journal of Logic and Computation. To appear.
Dung, P.: 1994,'Logic Programming as Dialog Game’, Unpublished paper, Division of Computer Science, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok.
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.
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.
Gordon, T.: 1995, The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London.
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.
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.
Hage, J., R. Leenes, and A. Lodder: 1994,'Hard Cases: a Procedural Approach’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 2, 113-166.
Hamblin, C.: 1971,'Mathematical Models of Dialogue’, Theoria 37, 130-155.
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.
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.
Kraus, S., K. Sycara, and A. Evenchik: 1998,'Reaching Agreements Through Argumentation: A Logical Model and Implementation’, Artificial Intelligence 104, 1-69.
Lodder, A.: 1999, DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London.
Loui, R.: 1994,'Argument and Arbitration Games’, in Working Notes of the AAAI-94 Workshop on Computational Dialectics.
Loui, R.: 1998,'Process and Policy: Resource-Bounded Non-Demonstrative Reasoning’, Computational Intelligence 14, 1-38.
MacKenzie, J.: 1990,'Four Dialogue Systems’, Studia Logica 51, 567-583.
Parsons, S., C. Sierra, and N. Jennings: 1998,'Agents that Reason and Negotiate by Arguing’, Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 261-292.
Pollock, J.: 1992,'How to Reason Defeasibly’, Artificial Intelligence 57, 1-42.
Prakken, H. and G. Sartor: 1997,'Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities’, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25-75.
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.
Reiter, R.: 1999, Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Describing and Implementing Dynamical Systems, Book draft, available at http://www.cs.toronto.edu/cogrobo/.
Simari, G. and R. Loui: 1992,'A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Argumentation and its Implementation’, Artificial Intelligence 53, 125-157.
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.
Vreeswijk, G.: 1995,'The Computational Value of Debate in Defeasible Reasoning’, Argumentation 9, 305-341.
Vreeswijk, G.: 1997,'Abstract Argumentation Systems’, Artificial Intelligence 90, 225-279.
Vreeswijk, G.: 2000,'Representation of Formal Dispute with a Standing Order’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 8(2), 205-231.
Walton, D.: 1990,'What is Reasoning? What is an Argument?’, Journal of Philosophy 87, 399-419.
Walton, D.: 1999,'Applying Labelled Deductive Systems and Multi-Agent Systems to Source-Based Argumentation’, Journal of Logic and Computation 9, 63-80.
Walton, D. and E. Krabbe: 1995, Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
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
- Static Information
- General Framework
- Information Base
- Natural Dynamic
- Dynamic Setting