Determining Preferences Through Argumentation

  • Sylvie Doutre
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
  • Paul E. Dunne
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3673)


Arguments concerning what an agent should do cannot be considered in isolation: they occur in the context of debates where arguments attacking and defending each other are advanced. This is recognised by the use of argumentation frameworks which determine the status of an argument by reference to its presence in a coherent position: a subset of the arguments advanced which is collectively able to defend itself against all attackers. Where the position concerns practical reasoning, defence may be made by making a choice justified in terms of the values of an agent. Participants in the debate, however, are typically not neutral in their attitude towards the arguments: there will be arguments they wish to accept and others they wish to reject. In this paper we model how a participant in a debate can develop a position which is coherent both with respect to the attack relations between arguments and any value choices made. We define a framework for representing a set of arguments constituting the debate, and describe how a position including the desired arguments can be developed through a dialogue with an opponent. A key contribution is that the value choices are made as part of the argumentation process, and need not be determined in advance.


Practical Reasoning Transitive Closure Argumentation Framework Argument System Attack Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Math. and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–215 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., McBurney, P.: Justifying practical reasoning. In: ECAI Workshop CMNA 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Agreeing to differ: modelling persuasive dialogue between parties with different values. Informal Logic 22(3), 231–245 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Sartor, G.: A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence 150(1-2), 97–143 (2003)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Mengin, J.: Minimal defence: a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. NMR 2002, pp. 408–415 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 377–403 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doutre, S., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Explaining preferences with argument positions. In: Proc. IJCAI 2005 (2005) (to appear)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence 141, 187–203 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Two party immediate response disputes: properties and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence 149, 221–250 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Complexity in value-based argument systems. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 360–371. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Identifying audience preferences in legal and social domains. In: Galindo, F., Takizawa, M., Traunmüller, R. (eds.) DEXA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3180, pp. 518–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hunter, A.: Making argumentation more believable. In: Proc. of the 19th American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2004), pp. 269–274. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. ICAIL 1999, pp. 53–62 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Univ. of Notre-Dame Press (1969)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Searle, J.R.: Rationality in Action. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vreeswijk, G., Prakken, H.: Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In: Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L., Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, pp. 224–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walton, D.N.: Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvie Doutre
    • 1
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
    • 1
  • Paul E. Dunne
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations