Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relating Protocols For Dynamic Dispute With Logics For Defeasible Argumentation

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article investigates to what extent protocols for dynamicdisputes, i.e., disputes in which the information base can vary at differentstages, can be justified in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Firsta general framework is formulated for dialectical proof theories for suchlogics. Then this framework is adapted to serve as a framework for protocols fordynamic disputes, after which soundness and fairness properties are formulated for such protocols relative to dialectical proof theories. It then turns out that certaintypes of protocols that are perfectly fine with a static information base, arenot sound or fair in a dynamic setting. Finally, a natural dynamic protocolis defined for which soundness and fairness can be established.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Aleven, V. and K. Ashley: 1997,'Evaluating a Learning Environment for Case-Based Argumentation Skills’, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM Press, New York, pp. 170-179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T.: 1998,'Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game’, in Legal Knowledge-Based Systems. JURIX: The Eleventh Conference, Gerard Noodt Instituut, Nijmegen, pp. 5-19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bondarenko, A., P. Dung, R. Kowalski, and F. Toni: 1997,'An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence 93, 63-101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewka, G.: 2000,'Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus’, Journal of Logic and Computation. To appear.

  • Dung, P.: 1994,'Logic Programming as Dialog Game’, Unpublished paper, Division of Computer Science, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dung, P.: 1995,'On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n-Person Games’, Artificial Intelligence 77, 321-357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, A., G. Simari, and C. Chesñevar: 1998,'An Argumentative Framework for Reasoning with Inconsistent and Incomplete Information’, in Proceedings of the ECAI'98 Workshop on Practical Reasoning and Rationality, Brighton, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T.: 1995, The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. and N. Karaçapilidis: 1997,'The Zeno Argumentation Framework’, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York: ACM Press, pp. 10-18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T., N. Karaçapilidis, H. Voss, and A. Zauke: 1997,'Computer-Mediated Cooperative Spatial Planning’, in H. Timmermans (ed.), Decision Support Systems in Urban Planning. E & FN SPON Publishers, London, pp. 299-309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J., R. Leenes, and A. Lodder: 1994,'Hard Cases: a Procedural Approach’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 2, 113-166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C.: 1971,'Mathematical Models of Dialogue’, Theoria 37, 130-155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, J.: 1999,'Is Logic the Key to All Good Reasoning?’, in Inquiry as Inquiry: A Logic of Scientific Discovery, Vol. 5 of Jaakko Hintikka Selected Papers, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, pp. 1-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobovits, H. and D. Vermeir: 1999,'Dialectic Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks’, in Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM Press, New York, pp. 53-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, S., K. Sycara, and A. Evenchik: 1998,'Reaching Agreements Through Argumentation: A Logical Model and Implementation’, Artificial Intelligence 104, 1-69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodder, A.: 1999, DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R.: 1994,'Argument and Arbitration Games’, in Working Notes of the AAAI-94 Workshop on Computational Dialectics.

  • Loui, R.: 1998,'Process and Policy: Resource-Bounded Non-Demonstrative Reasoning’, Computational Intelligence 14, 1-38.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, J.: 1990,'Four Dialogue Systems’, Studia Logica 51, 567-583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, S., C. Sierra, and N. Jennings: 1998,'Agents that Reason and Negotiate by Arguing’, Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 261-292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.: 1992,'How to Reason Defeasibly’, Artificial Intelligence 57, 1-42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and G. Sartor: 1997,'Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities’, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25-75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and G. Vreeswijk: 2000,'Logical Systems for Defeasible argumentation’, in D. Gabbay (ed.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. 2nd edn, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, to appear.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R.: 1999, Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Describing and Implementing Dynamical Systems, Book draft, available at http://www.cs.toronto.edu/cogrobo/.

  • Simari, G. and R. Loui: 1992,'A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Argumentation and its Implementation’, Artificial Intelligence 53, 125-157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., A. Weiner, J. Connelly, and M. Paolucci: 1995,'Belvedere: Engaging Students in Critical Discussion of Science and Public Policy Issues’, in Proceedings of the Seventh World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 266-273.

  • Vreeswijk, G.: 1995,'The Computational Value of Debate in Defeasible Reasoning’, Argumentation 9, 305-341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G.: 1997,'Abstract Argumentation Systems’, Artificial Intelligence 90, 225-279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G.: 2000,'Representation of Formal Dispute with a Standing Order’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 8(2), 205-231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.: 1990,'What is Reasoning? What is an Argument?’, Journal of Philosophy 87, 399-419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.: 1999,'Applying Labelled Deductive Systems and Multi-Agent Systems to Source-Based Argumentation’, Journal of Logic and Computation 9, 63-80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. and E. Krabbe: 1995, Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

    Henry Prakken

Authors
  1. Henry Prakken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prakken, H. Relating Protocols For Dynamic Dispute With Logics For Defeasible Argumentation. Synthese 127, 187–219 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010322504453

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010322504453

Keywords

Search

Navigation