The Toulmin Argument Model in Artificial Intelligence

Or: how semi-formal, defeasible argumentation schemes creep into logic
  • Bart Verheij

In 1958, Toulmin published The Uses of Argument. Although this anti-formalistic monograph initially received mixed reviews (see section 2 of [20] for Toulmin’s own recounting of the reception of his book), it has become a classical text on argumentation, and the number of references to the book (when writing these words1 —by a nice numerological coincidence—1958) continues to grow (see [7] and the special issue of Argumentation 2005; Vol. 19, No. 3). Also the field of Artificial Intelligence has discovered Toulmin’s work. Especially four of Toulmin’s themes have found follow-up in Artificial Intelligence.


Legal Reasoning Argumentation Framework Default Theory Argument Analysis Prefer Extension 
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.



The author would like to thank David Hitchcock and James Freeman for comments on a prepublication version of this text.


  1. 1.
    K. D. Ashley. Modeling legal argument. Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. The MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts), 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429–448, 2003.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321–357, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. T. Feteris. Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. C. Hage. A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:199–273, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. L. Hitchcock and B. Verheij, editors. Arguing on the Toulmin Model. New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation (Argumentation Library, Volume 10). Springer-Verlag, Dordrecht, 2006.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, and C. S. Carr. Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Springer-Verlag, London, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. P. Loui. Hart’s critics on defeasible concepts and ascriptivism. In The Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Proceedings of the Conference, pages 21–30. ACM, New York (New York), 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. P. Loui and J. Norman. Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3:159–189, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. L. Pollock. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11:481–518, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. L. Pollock. Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. The MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts), 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:331–368, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Reed and G. Rowe. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools, 13(4):961–980, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Reiter. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81–132, 1980.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. J. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence. A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (New Jersey), 2003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. R. Simari and R. P. Loui. A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its applications. Artificial Intelligence, 53:125–157, 1992.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. E. Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1958.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. E. Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Updated Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. E. Toulmin. Reasoning in theory and practice. In D. L. Hitchcock and B. Verheij, editors, Arguing on the Toulmin Model. New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation (Argumentation Library, Volume 10)., pages 25–30. Springer-Verlag, Dordrecht, 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. Reconstructing Argumentative Dialogue. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa (Alabama), 1993.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, and F. Snoeck Henkemans. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (New Jersey), 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    B. Verheij. DefLog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):319–346, 2003.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    B. Verheij. Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11(1-2):167–195, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. Verheij. Evaluating arguments based on toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation, 19(3):347–371, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    B. Verheij. Virtual arguments. On the design of argument assistants for lawyers and other arguers. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, 2005.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    B. Verheij. Argumentation support software: Boxes-and-arrows and beyond. Law, Probability and Risk, 6:187–208, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    B. Verheij, J. C. Hage, and H. J. van den Herik. An integrated view on rules and principles. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6(1):3–26, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. A. W. Vreeswijk. Studies in defeasible argumentation. 1993.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    G. A. W. Vreeswijk. Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence, 90:225–279, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    D. N. Walton. Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (New Jersey), 1996.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    D. N. Walton. The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1998.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    D. N. Walton and E. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (New York), 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bart Verheij
    • 1
  1. 1.Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of GroningenUtrechtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations