Abstract
In this paper we explore the thesis that the role of argumentation in practical reasoning in general and legal reasoning in particular is to justify the use of defeasible rules to derive a conclusion in preference to the use of other defeasible rules to derive a conflicting conclusion. The defeasibility of rules is expressed by means of non-provability claims as additional conditions of the rules.
We outline an abstract approach to defeasible reasoning and argumentation which includes many existing formalisms, including default logic, extended logic programming, non-monotonic modal logic and auto-epistemic logic, as special cases. We show, in particular, that the ‘admissibility’ semantics for all these formalisms has a natural argumentation-theoretic interpretation and proof procedure, which seem to correspond well with informal argumentation.
In the admissibility semantics there is only one way for one argument to attack another, namely by undermining one of its non-provability claims. In this paper, we show how other kinds of attack between arguments, specifically how rebuttal and priority attacks, can be reduced to the undermining of non-provability claims.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A. Bondarenko, P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski, F. Toni (1996) An abstract, argumentation-theoretic framework for default reasoning. To appear in Artificial Intelligence, Elsevier.
G. Brewka (1989) Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning. Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, Mi Morgan Kaufmann (N. Sridharan, ed.) 1043–1048
Y. Dimopoulos, A. C. Kakas (1995) Logic programming without negation as failure. Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium, Portland, Oregon MIT Press (J. Lloyd, ed.) 369–384
P. M. Dung (1993) The acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming. Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Chambery, France Morgan Kaufmann (R. Bajcsy, ed.) 852–857
Dung, P. M. (1993) An argumentation semantics for logic progranuning with explicit negation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Logic Programming. Paris MIT Press (K. Furukawa, ed.)
P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski, F. Toni (1996) Argumentation-theoretic proof procedures for non-monotonic reasoning. Proc. 6th Logic Programming Synthesis and Transformation (J. Gallagher ed.)
M. Gelfond, V. Lifschitz (1988) The stable model semantics for logic programming. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming, Washington, Seattle MIT Press (K. Bowen and R. A. Kowalski, eds.) 1070–1080
M. Gelfond, V. Lifschitz (1990) Logic programs with classical negation. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming, Jerusalem MIT Press (D. H. D. Warren and P. Szeredi, eds.) 579–597
T. F. Gordon (1993) The pleadings game: an exercise in computational dialectics, Artificial Intelligence and Law 2(4), Kluwer Academic Publishers 239–292
J. Hage (1995) Teleological reasoning in reason-based logic. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, College Park, MD ACM Press, 11–20
K. Konolige (1994) Autoepistemic logic. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming 3, Oxford University Press (D. Gabbay, C. Hogger, J. A. Robinson, eds.)
R. A. Kowalski (1995) Legislation as logic programs. Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning, Kluwer Academic Publishers (Z. Bankowski et al., eds.) 325–356
Kowalski, R. A., Sadri, F. (1990) Logic programs with exceptions. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming, Jerusalem MIT Press (D. H. D. Warren and P. Szeredi, eds.) 598–613
D. McDermott (1982) Nonmonotonic logic II: non-monotonic modal theories. Journal of ACM 29(1) 33–57
R. Moore (1985) Semantical considerations on non-monotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence 25, Elsevier 75–94
J. L. Pollock (1987) Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11 481–518
H. Prakken, G. Sartor (1995) On the relation between legal language and legal argument: assumptions, applicability and dynamic priorities. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law College Park, MD ACM Press, 1–10
H. Prakken, G. Sartor (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. In this issue.
R. Reiter (1980) A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, Elsevier 81–132
G. Sartor (1991) The structure of norm conditions and non-monotonic reasoning in law. Proceedings of the 3th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Oxford ACM Press, 155–164
G. Shvarts (1990) Autoepistemic modal logics. Proc. 3rd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, Pacific Grove, CA Morgan Kaufmann (R. Parikh, ed.) 97–110
F. Toni, A. C. Kakas (1995) Computing the acceptability semantics. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, Springer Verlag LNAI 928 (V. Marek, A. Nerode, M. Truszczynski, eds.) 401–415
F. Toni, R. A. Kowalski (1995) Reduction of abductive logic programs to normal logic programs. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Logic Programming, Japan MIT Press (Leon Sterling, ed.) 367–381
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F. Abstract argumentation. Artif Intell Law 4, 275–296 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118494
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118494