On Dialogue Systems with Speech Acts, Arguments, and Counterarguments

  • Henry Prakken
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1919)

Abstract

This paper proposes a formal framework for argumentative dialogue systems with the possibility of counterargument. The framework allows for claiming, challenging, retracting and conceding propositions. It also allows for exchanging arguments and counterarguments for propo-sitions, by incorporating argument games for nonmonotonic logics. A key element of the framework is a precise definition of the notion of relevance of a move, which enables flexible yet well-behaved protocols.

Keywords

MultiAgent System Initial Move Main Claim Argumentation Logic Situation Calculus 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, and S. Parsons. Modelling dialogues using argumentation.In Proceedings of the Fourt International Conference on MultiAgent SystemsBoston, MA, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    T.J.M. Bench-Capon, D. Lowes, and A.M. McEnery. Using Toulmin’s argument schema to explain logic programs. Knowledge Based Systems, pages 177–183, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation pro-cesses based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2000. To appear.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    T.F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game.An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    F. Grasso, A. Cawsey, and R. Jones. Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2000. To appear.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J.C. Hage, R.E. Leenes, and A.R. Lodder. Hard cases: a procedural approach.Artificial Intelligence and Law2:113–166, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    R.P. Loui. Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 14:1–38, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    J.D. MacKenzie. Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philo-sophical Logic, 8:117–133, 1979.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    N. Maudet and D. Moore. Dialogue games for computer-supported collaborative argumentation. In Proceedings of t e Works op on Computer-Supported Col labo-rative Argumentation for Learning Communities, Stanford, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and N.R. Jennings. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8:261–292, 1998.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    H. Praken. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese, 2000. To appear in special issue on New Perpective in Dialogical Logics.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    H. Prakken and G.A.W. Vreeswijk. Logical systems for defeasible argumenta-tion. In D. Gabbay, editor, Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 2000. Second edition, to appear.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    G.A.W. Vreeswijk. The computational value of debate in defeasible reasoning. Argumentation, 9:305–341, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    D.N. Walton and E.C.W. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue.Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry Prakken
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations