Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Burden of Proof in Deliberation Dialogs

  • Conference paper
Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6057))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The literature in argumentation and artificial intelligence has distinguished five types of burden of proof in persuasion dialogs, but there appears to have been no serious investigation so far on how burdens of proof should be modeled in deliberation dialogs. The work in this paper is directed toward filling that gap by extending existing formal models of deliberation dialog to analyze four examples of deliberation dialog where burden of proof is at issue or poses an interesting problem. The examples are used to show (1) that the eight stages in the formal model of Hitchcock, McBurney and Parsons (2007) need to be divided into three more general stages, an opening stage, an argumentation stage and a closing stage, (2) that deliberation dialog shifts to persuasion dialog during the argumentation stage, and (3) that burden of proof is only operative during the argumentation stage. What is shown in general is that deliberation is, in the typical type of case, a mixed dialog in which there is a shift to persuasion dialog in the middle.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., McBurney, P.: A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(2), 153–171 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., McBurney, P.: Computational Representation of Practical Argument. Synthese 152, 157–206 (2006)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.: Argumentation and Standards of Proof. In: Winkels, R. (ed.) Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 2007), pp. 107–116. ACM Press, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bailey, R.: Precautionary Tale (April 1999), http://www.reason.com/news/show/30977.html

  5. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Freestone, D., Hey, E.: Origins and Developments of the Precautionary Principle. In: Freestone, D., Hey, E. (eds.) The Precautionary Principle and International Law, pp. 3–15. Kluwer Law International, The Hague (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gordon, T.F., Karacapilidis, N.: The Zero Argumentation Framework. In: Branting, L.K. (ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law, pp. 10–18. ACM Press, New York (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof. Artificial Intelligence 171, 875–896 (2007)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Gordon, T.F., Walton, D.: Proof Burdens and Standards. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hathcock, J.N.: The Precautionary Principle - an Impossible Burden of Proof for New Products. Ag. Bio. Forum. 3, 255–258 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kauffeld, F.: The Ordinary Practice of Presuming and Presumption with Special Attention to Veracity and Burden of Proof. In: van Eemeren, F.H., Blair, J.A., Willard, C.A., Snoek Henkemans, A.F. (eds.) Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, pp. 136–146. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lascher, E.L.: The Politics of Automobile Insurance Reform: Ideas, Institutions, and Public Policy in North America. Georgetown University Press, Washington (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  13. McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Chance Discovery Using Dialectical Argumentation. In: Terano, T., Nishida, T., Namatame, A., Tsumoto, S., Ohsawa, Y., Washio, T. (eds.) JSAI-WS 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2253, pp. 414–424. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., Parsons, S.: The Eightfold Way of Deliberation Dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22, 95–132 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Girela, M.A.R.: Dangerous Interpretations of the Precautionary Principle and the Foundational Values of the European Food Law: Risk versus Risk. Journal of Food Law and Policy 4 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Prakken, H.: Formal Systems for Persuasion Dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21, 163–188 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.: Dialogues about the Burden of Proof. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 115–124. ACM, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Presumptions and Burdens of Proof. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006. In: van Engers, T.M. (ed.) The Nineteenth Annual Conference, pp. 21–30. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Formalising Arguments about the Burden of Persuasion. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 97–106. ACM Press, New York (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: A Logical Analysis of Burdens of Proof. In: Kapitein, H., Prakken, H., Verheij, B. (eds.) Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic, Applied Legal Philosophy Series. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, pp. 223–253 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Reed, C., Rowe, G.: Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 14, 961–980 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tang, Y., Parsons, S.: Argumentation-Based Multi-agent Dialogues for Deliberation. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4049, pp. 229–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Walton, D.: Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Walton, D.: How to Make and Defend a Proposal in Deliberation Dialogue. Artificial Intelligence and Law 14, 177–239 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Walton, D., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Walton, D., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Wyner, A., Cartwright, D.: Argumentation in the Framework of Deliberation Dialogue. In: Bjola, C., Kornprobst, M. (eds.) Argumentation and Global Governance (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wigmore, J.H.: A Student’s Textbook of the Law of Evidence. The Foundation Press, Chicago (1935)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, N9B 3Y1, Canada

    Douglas Walton

Authors
  1. Douglas Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dpt. of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, L69 3BX, Liverpool, UK

    Peter McBurney

  2. Faculty of Informatics, British University in Dubai, P.O. Box 502216, Dubai, UAE

    Iyad Rahwan

  3. Department of Computer & Information Science, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, 2900 Bedford Avenue, 11210, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    Simon Parsons

  4. LAMSADE, Université Paris 9 Dauphine, 75775, Paris Cedex 16, France

    Nicolas Maudet

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Walton, D. (2010). Burden of Proof in Deliberation Dialogs. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6057. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-12804-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-12805-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation