Abstract
Arguments concerning what an agent should do cannot be considered in isolation: they occur in the context of debates where arguments attacking and defending each other are advanced. This is recognised by the use of argumentation frameworks which determine the status of an argument by reference to its presence in a coherent position: a subset of the arguments advanced which is collectively able to defend itself against all attackers. Where the position concerns practical reasoning, defence may be made by making a choice justified in terms of the values of an agent. Participants in the debate, however, are typically not neutral in their attitude towards the arguments: there will be arguments they wish to accept and others they wish to reject. In this paper we model how a participant in a debate can develop a position which is coherent both with respect to the attack relations between arguments and any value choices made. We define a framework for representing a set of arguments constituting the debate, and describe how a position including the desired arguments can be developed through a dialogue with an opponent. A key contribution is that the value choices are made as part of the argumentation process, and need not be determined in advance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Math. and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–215 (2002)
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., McBurney, P.: Justifying practical reasoning. In: ECAI Workshop CMNA 2004 (2004)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Agreeing to differ: modelling persuasive dialogue between parties with different values. Informal Logic 22(3), 231–245 (2002)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Sartor, G.: A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence 150(1-2), 97–143 (2003)
Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Mengin, J.: Minimal defence: a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. NMR 2002, pp. 408–415 (2002)
Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 377–403 (2003)
Doutre, S., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Explaining preferences with argument positions. In: Proc. IJCAI 2005 (2005) (to appear)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence 141, 187–203 (2002)
Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Two party immediate response disputes: properties and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence 149, 221–250 (2003)
Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Complexity in value-based argument systems. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 360–371. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Identifying audience preferences in legal and social domains. In: Galindo, F., Takizawa, M., Traunmüller, R. (eds.) DEXA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3180, pp. 518–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Hunter, A.: Making argumentation more believable. In: Proc. of the 19th American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2004), pp. 269–274. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)
Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. ICAIL 1999, pp. 53–62 (1999)
Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Univ. of Notre-Dame Press (1969)
Searle, J.R.: Rationality in Action. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)
Vreeswijk, G., Prakken, H.: Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In: Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L., Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, pp. 224–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Walton, D.N.: Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Doutre, S., Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.E. (2005). Determining Preferences Through Argumentation. In: Bandini, S., Manzoni, S. (eds) AI*IA 2005: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. AI*IA 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3673. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11558590_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11558590_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-29041-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31733-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)