Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Open Texture and Argumentation: What Makes an Argument Persuasive?

  • Chapter
Logic Programs, Norms and Action

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,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.

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.

References

  1. Aleven, V.: Teaching Case Based Argumentation Through an Example and Models. Phd thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Bonnefon, J.-F., Prade, H.: An argumentation-based approach to multiple criteria decision. In: Godo [24], pp. 269–280

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artif. Intell. 173(3-4), 413–436 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Ashley, K.D.: Modeling Legal Argument. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., McBurney, P.: Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152(2), 157–206 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 675–700 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Prakken, H.: Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artif. Intell. Law 18(2), 153–174 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Atkinson, K., Chorley, A.: Persuasion and value in legal argument. J. Log. Comput. 15(6), 1075–1097 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Coenen, F.P.: Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 65–86 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo [24], pp. 378–389

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Godo, L. (ed.): ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: AAMAS, pp. 883–890. ACM (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kakas, A.C., Toni, F.: Computing argumentation in logic programming. J. Log. Comput. 9(4), 515–562 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Artif. Intell. Law 4(3-4), 275–296 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Maslow, A.: Motivation and Personality. Harper and Row, New York (1954)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 173(9-10), 901–934 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. Modgil, S., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Metalevel argumentation. J. Log. Comput. 21(6), 959–1003 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press (June 1969)

    Google Scholar 

  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. Prakken, H.: An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artif. Intell. Law 10(1-3), 113–133 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1(2), 93–124 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Sartor, G.: Doing justice to rights and values: teleological reasoning and proportionality. Artif. Intell. Law 18(2), 175–215 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)

    Google Scholar 

  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. Waismann, F.: The Principles of Linguistic Philosophy. St. Martins Press, NY (1965)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Trevor Bench-Capon

Authors
  1. Trevor Bench-Capon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Software and Knowledge Engineering Laboratory, Institute of Informatics and Telecommunications, National Centre for Scientific Research ’Demokritos’, 15310, Athens, Greece

    Alexander Artikis

  2. Department of Computing, Imperial College London, 180 Queen’s Gate, SW7 2AZ, London, UK

    Robert Craven

  3. Department of Computer Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Dumlupınar Bulvarı No. 1, 06800, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey

    Nihan Kesim Çiçekli

  4. Axiomatics AB, Box 2157, 103 14, Stockholm, Sweden

    Babak Sadighi

  5. Royal Holloway, University of London, UK

    Kostas Stathis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bench-Capon, T. (2012). Open Texture and Argumentation: What Makes an Argument Persuasive?. In: Artikis, A., Craven, R., Kesim Çiçekli, N., Sadighi, B., Stathis, K. (eds) Logic Programs, Norms and Action. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7360. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29414-3_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29414-3_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-29413-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-29414-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation