Open Texture and Argumentation: What Makes an Argument Persuasive?

  • Trevor Bench-Capon
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7360)

Abstract

Although Marek Sergot’s contribution to Artificial Intelliegnce and Law is mainly associated with the formalisation of legislation as a logic program, he also wrote on an approach to the treatment of open textured concepts in law, using argumentation. That paper posed the question what makes an argument persuasive? This short paper considers the ideas of that paper and discusses developments in AI and Law over the subsequent 25 years, focusing on the progress made in answering this question in that domain.

Keywords

Logic Program Logic Programming Legal Reasoning Abstract Argumentation Social Utility 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aleven, V.: Teaching Case Based Argumentation Through an Example and Models. Phd thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Bonnefon, J.-F., Prade, H.: An argumentation-based approach to multiple criteria decision. In: Godo [24], pp. 269–280Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artif. Intell. 173(3-4), 413–436 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ashley, K.D.: Modeling Legal Argument. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., McBurney, P.: Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152(2), 157–206 (2006)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 675–700 (2007)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Prakken, H.: Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artif. Intell. Law 18(2), 153–174 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Sergot, M.J.: Towards a rule-based representation of open texture in law. In: Walter, C. (ed.) Computer Power and Legal Language: The Use of Computational Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, and Expert Systems in the Law, Quorum, New York, ch. 6, pp. 39–60 (1988); From the Second Annual Conference on Law and Technology, June 24-28. University of Houston (1985)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Representation of case law as an argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of Jurix 2001, pp. 103–112 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Relating values in a series of supreme court decisions. In: Atkinson, K. (ed.) JURIX 2011: The Twenty First Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, pp. 13–22. IOS Press, Vienna (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Atkinson, K., Chorley, A.: Persuasion and value in legal argument. J. Log. Comput. 15(6), 1075–1097 (2005)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Coenen, F.P.: Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 65–86 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Modgil, S.: Case law in extended argumentation frameworks. In: The 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 118–127 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Robinson, G.O., Routen, T., Sergot, M.J.: Logic programming for large scale applications in law: A formalisation of supplementary benefit legislation. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on AI and Law, pp. 190–198 (1987)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Sartor, G.: A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif. Intell. 150(1-2), 97–143 (2003)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Visser, P.R.S.: Ontologies in legal information systems: The need for explicit specifications of domain conceptualisations. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on AI and Law, pp. 132–141 (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    BenchCapon, T.J.M., Coenen, F., Orton, P.: Argument based explanation of the british nationality act as a logic program. Information and Communications Technology Law 2(1), 53–66 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berman, D.H., Hafner, C.D.: Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: The missing link. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on AI and Law, pp. 50–59 (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo [24], pp. 378–389Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chorley, A., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application. Artif. Intell. Law 13(3-4), 323–371 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. In: IJCAI (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Godo, L. (ed.): ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gordon, T.F.: The pleadings game: Formalizing procedural justice. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on AI and Law, pp. 10–19 (1993)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grabmair, M., Ashley, K.: Facilitating case comparison using value judgments and intermediate legal concepts. In: Proc. of the 13th ICAIL, pp. 161–170 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grabmair, M., Ashley, K.D.: Argumentation with value judgments - an example of hypothetical reasoning. In: Winkels, R. (ed.) JURIX. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 223, pp. 67–76. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hage, J.: Monological reason-based logic: A low level integration of rule-based reasoning and case-based reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on AI and Law, pp. 30–39 (1993)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P., Dung, P.M.: The acceptability semantics for logic programs. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 504–519 (1994)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: AAMAS, pp. 883–890. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kakas, A.C., Toni, F.: Computing argumentation in logic programming. J. Log. Comput. 9(4), 515–562 (1999)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Artif. Intell. Law 4(3-4), 275–296 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lucero, M.J.G., Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R.: On the accrual of arguments in defeasible logic programming. In: Boutilier, C. (ed.) IJCAI, pp. 804–809 (2009)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maslow, A.: Motivation and Personality. Harper and Row, New York (1954)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 173(9-10), 901–934 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Modgil, S., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Integrating dialectical and accrual modes of argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Simari, G.R. (eds.) COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 216, pp. 335–346. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Modgil, S., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Metalevel argumentation. J. Log. Comput. 21(6), 959–1003 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press (June 1969)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Prakken, H.: A logical framework for modelling legal argument. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on AI and Law, pp. 1–9 (1993)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Prakken, H.: An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artif. Intell. Law 10(1-3), 113–133 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Prakken, H.: A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Internatoinal Conference on AI and Law, pp. 85–94 (2005)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1(2), 93–124 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: On the relation between legal language and legal argument: Assumptions, applicability and dynamic priorities. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on AI and Law, pp. 1–10 (1995)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rissland, E.L.: Dimension-based analysis of hypotheticals from supreme court oral argument. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on AI and Law, pp. 111–120 (1989)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sartor, G.: Doing justice to rights and values: teleological reasoning and proportionality. Artif. Intell. Law 18(2), 175–215 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sergot, M.: A query-the-user facility for logic programming. In: New Horizons in Educational Computing, pp. 145–163. Halsted Press, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sergot, M.J., Kamble, A.S., Bajaj, K.K.: Indian central civil service pension rules: A case study in logic programming applied to regulations. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on AI and Law, pp. 118–127 (1991)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sergot, M.J., Sadri, F., Kowalski, R.A., Kriwaczek, F., Hammond, P., Cory, H.T.: The british nationality act as a logic program. Commun. ACM 29(5), 370–386 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Verheij, B.: Accrual of arguments in defeasible argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Second Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp. 217–224 (1995)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Waismann, F.: The Principles of Linguistic Philosophy. St. Martins Press, NY (1965)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Trevor Bench-Capon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations