Abstract
This paper presents dialectical proof theories for Dung’s pre-ferred semantics of defeasible argumentation. The proof theories have the form of argument games for testing membership of some (credulous reasoning) or all preferred extensions (sceptical reasoning). The credulous proof theory is for the general case, while the sceptical version is for the case where preferred semantics coincides with stable semantics. The development of these argument games is especially motivated by applica-tions of argumentation in automated negotiation, mediation of collective discussion and decision making, and intelligent tutoring.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
V. Aleven and K.D. Ashley. Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 170–179, New York, 1997. ACM Press.
L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, and S. Parsons. Modelling dialogues using argumentation.In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Mul tiAgent Systems Boston, MA, 2000.
T.J.M. Bench-Capon. Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In Legal Knowledge-Based Systems. JURIX: The Eleventh Conference, pages 5–19, Nijmegen, 1998. Gerard Noodt Instituut.
A. Bondarenko, P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski, and F. Toni. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93(1-2):63–101, 1997.
G. Brewka. A reconstruction of Rescher’s theory of formal disputation based on default logic. In A. Cohn, editor, Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 366–370. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1994.
G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation pro-cesses based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2000. To appear.
Y. Dimopoulos, B. Nebel, and F. Toni. Preferred arguments are harder to compute than stable extensions. In T. Dean, editor, Proc. of the 16th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI99), pages 36–41. Morgan Kaufmann, 1999.
P.M. Dung. Logic programming as dialog game. Unpublished paper, Division of Computer Science, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, 1994.
P.M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelli-gence, 77(2):321–357, 1995.
T.F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1995. Revised edition of the author’s Ph.D. thesis (same title), Technische Hochschule, Darmstadt, 1993.
T.F. Gordon, N Karaçapilidis, H. Voss, and A. Zauke. Computer-mediated co-operative spatial planning. In H. Timmermans, editor, Decision Support Systems in Urban Planning, pages 299–309. E & FN SPON Publishers London 1997.
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.
J.C. Hage, R.E. Leenes, and A.R. Lodder. Hard cases: a procedural approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2:113–166, 1994.
H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir. Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks.In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 53–62, New York, 1999. ACM Press.
A.C. Kakas and F. Toni. Computing argumentation in logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9:515–562, 1999.
S. Kraus, K. Sycara, and A. Evenchik. Reaching agreements through argumenta-tion: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 104:1–69, 1998.
A.R. Lodder. DiaLaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumen-tation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1999.
R.P. Loui. Process and policy: Resource-bounded nondemonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 14(1):1–38, 1998.
N. Maudet and D. Moore. Dialogue games for computer-supported collaborative argumentation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computer-Supported Col labo-rative Argumentation for Learning Communities, Stanford, 1999.
S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and N.R. Jennings. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8:261–292, 1998.
J.L. Pollock. Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.
H. Prakken. On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterargu-ments. 2000. These proceedings.
H. Prakken. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese, 2000. To appear in special issue on New Perspectives in Dialogical Logics.
H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25–75, 1997.
H. Prakken and G.A.W. Vreeswijk. Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. To appear in D. Gabbay (ed.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht etc., 2000.
G.R. Simari, C.I. Chesñevar, and A.J. Garcia. The role of dialectics in defeasible argumentation. In Proceedings of the XIV International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society, 1994.
D. Suthers, A. Weiner, J. Connelly, and M. Paolucci. Belvedere: engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. In Proceedings of the Seventh World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pages 266–273, 1995.
H.B. Verheij. Automated argument assistance for lawyers. In Proc. of the Seventh Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 43–52, New York, 1999. ACM.
G.A.W. Vreeswijk. Defeasible dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach towards defeasible argumentation. The Journal of Logic and Computation, 3(3):3–27, 1993.
G.A.W. Vreeswijk. Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90:225–279, 1997.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Vreeswik, G.A.W., Prakken, H. (2000). Credulous and Sceptical Argument Games for Preferred Semantics. In: Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P., Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1919. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-40006-0_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-40006-0_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41131-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-40006-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive