Advertisement

Abstract Argumentation and Values

  • Trevor Bench-Capon
  • Katie Atkinson
Chapter

Abstract argumentation frameworks, as described in Chapter 11 are directed towards determining whether a claim that some statement is true can be coherently maintained in the context of a set of conflicting arguments. For example, if we use preferred semantics, that an argument is a member of all preferred extensions establishes that its claim must be accepted as true, and membership of at least one preferred extension shows that the claim is at least tenable. In consequence, that admissible sets of arguments are conflict free is an important requirement under all the various semantics.

Keywords

Argument Scheme Abstract Argumentation Argumentation Framework Prefer Extension Prefer Semantic 
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.
    K. Atkinson and T. Bench-Capon. Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10–15):855–874, 2007.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Atkinson and T. Bench-Capon. Addressing moral problems through practical reasoning. Journal of Applied Logic, 6(2):135–151, 2008.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. In Proc. of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL ’05), pages 35–44, 2005. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese, 152(2):157–206, 2006.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, and S. Modgil. Argumentation for decision support. In Proc. of the Seventeenth DEXA Conference, LNCS 4080, pages 822–831. Springer, 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429–448, 2003.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Bench-Capon, S. Doutre, and P.E. Dunne. Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 171(1):42–71, 2006.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. H. Berman and C. D. Hafner. Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL ’93), pages 50–59, 1993. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Cartwright and K. Atkinson. Political engagement through tools for argumentation. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, and A. Hunter, editors, Proc. of COMMA ’08, pages 116–127, 2008.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Chorley, T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. Automating argumentation for deliberation in cases of conflict of interest. In P. E. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon, editors, Proc. of COMMA ’06, pages 279–290. IOS Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. G. Christie. The Notion of an Ideal Audience in Legal Argument. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Coleman. Risks and Wrongs. Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. S. d’Avila Garcez, D. M. Gabbay, and L. C. Lamb. Value-based argumentation frameworks as neural-symbolic learning systems. J. of Logic and Computation, 15(6):1041–1058, 2005.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Kaci, L. van der Torre, and E. Weydert. On the acceptability of incompatible arguments. In Proc. of the Ninth ECSQARU Conference, pages 247–258, 2007.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. J. P. Kenny. Practical Reasoning and Rational Appetite. 1975. Reprinted in [23].Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Modgil. An abstract theory of argumentation that accommodates defeasible reasoning about preferences. In Proc. of the Ninth ECSQARU Conference, pages 648–659, 2007.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Modgil and T. Bench-Capon. Integrating object and meta-level value based argumentation. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, and A. Hunter, editors, Proc. of COMMA ’08, pages 240–251, 2008.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Perelman. Justice, Law, and Argument. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1980.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN, USA, 1969.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Prakken. An exercise in formalising teleological reasoning. In Proc. of the Thirteenth Annual JURIX Conference, pages 49–58, 2000. IOS Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. Prakken. Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning. In P. E. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon, editors, Proc. of COMMA ’06, pages 311–322. IOS Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Raz, editor. Practical Reasoning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1978.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. R. Searle. Rationality in Action. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. J. Sergot, F. Sadri, R. A. Kowalski, F. Kriwaczek, P. Hammond, and H. T. Cory. The British Nationality Act as a logic program. Communications of the ACM, 29(5):370–386, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    D. N. Walton. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1996.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. Wooldridge and W. van der Hoek. On obligations and normative ability: Towards a logical analysis of the social contract. Journal of Applied Logic, 3:396–420, 2005.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations