Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning.Douglas Neil Walton & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1995 - Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.
    Develops a logical analysis of dialogue in which two or more parties attempt to advance their own interests. It includes a classification of the major types of dialogues and a discussion of several important informal fallacies.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   385 citations  
  • Constructing argument graphs with deductive arguments: a tutorial.Philippe Besnard & Anthony Hunter - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (1):5-30.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial.Sanjay Modgil & Henry Prakken - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (1):31-62.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   67 citations  
  • Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument?Hans Hoeken, Rian Timmers & Peter Jan Schellens - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):394 - 416.
    Argument quality has consistently been shown to have strong and lasting persuasive effects. The question is what criteria people use to distinguish strong from weak arguments and how these criteria relate to the ones proposed in normative argumentation theory. In an experiment 235 participants without training in argumentation theory rated the acceptance of 30 claims about the desirability of a consequence that were supported by either an argument from analogy, from authority, or from consequences. The supporting arguments were systematically manipulated (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation.Jos Hornikx & Ulrike Hahn - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):225 - 243.
    Although argumentation plays an essential role in our lives, there is no integrated area of research on the psychology of argumentation. Instead research on argumentation is conducted in a number of separate research communities that are spread across disciplines and have only limited interaction. With a view to bridging these different strands, we first distinguish between three meanings of the word ?argument?: argument as a reason, argument as a structured sequence of reasons and claims, and argument as a social exchange. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Question-begging in non-cumulative systems.J. D. Mackenzie - 1979 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1):117 - 133.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   70 citations  
  • Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks.Sanjay Modgil - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence 173 (9-10):901-934.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   73 citations  
  • On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games.Phan Minh Dung - 1995 - Artificial Intelligence 77 (2):321-357.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   471 citations  
  • An activity-centric argumentation framework for assistive technology aimed at improving health.Esteban Guerrero, Juan Carlos Nieves & Helena Lindgren - 2016 - Argument and Computation 7 (1):5-33.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Proof with and without probabilities.Bart Verheij - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (1):127-154.
    Evidential reasoning is hard, and errors can lead to miscarriages of justice with serious consequences. Analytic methods for the correct handling of evidence come in different styles, typically focusing on one of three tools: arguments, scenarios or probabilities. Recent research used Bayesian networks for connecting arguments, scenarios, and probabilities. Well-known issues with Bayesian networks were encountered: More numbers are needed than are available, and there is a risk of misinterpretation of the graph underlying the Bayesian network, for instance as a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. [REVIEW]Peter McBurney & Simon Parsons - 2002 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11 (3):315-334.
    We present a logic-based formalism for modeling ofdialogues between intelligent and autonomous software agents,building on a theory of abstract dialogue games which we present.The formalism enables representation of complex dialogues assequences of moves in a combination of dialogue games, and allowsdialogues to be embedded inside one another. The formalism iscomputational and its modular nature enables different types ofdialogues to be represented.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  • Mathematical models of dialogue.C. L. Hamblin - 1971 - Theoria 37 (2):130-155.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   114 citations  
  • Behavioral Experiments for Assessing the Abstract Argumentation Semantics of Reinstatement.Iyad Rahwan, Mohammed I. Madakkatel, Jean-François Bonnefon, Ruqiyabi N. Awan & Sherief Abdallah - 2010 - Cognitive Science 34 (8):1483-1502.
    Argumentation is a very fertile area of research in Artificial Intelligence, and various semantics have been developed to predict when an argument can be accepted, depending on the abstract structure of its defeaters and defenders. When these semantics make conflicting predictions, theoretical arbitration typically relies on ad hoc examples and normative intuition about what prediction ought to be the correct one. We advocate a complementary, descriptive-experimental method, based on the collection of behavioral data about the way human reasoners handle these (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Methods for solving reasoning problems in abstract argumentation – A survey.Günther Charwat, Wolfgang Dvořák, Sarah A. Gaggl, Johannes P. Wallner & Stefan Woltran - 2015 - Artificial Intelligence 220 (C):28-63.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation.Francesca Toni - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (1):89-117.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   32 citations  
  • Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results.Paul E. Dunne, Anthony Hunter, Peter McBurney, Simon Parsons & Michael Wooldridge - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence 175 (2):457-486.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • Audiences in argumentation frameworks.Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, Sylvie Doutre & Paul E. Dunne - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (1):42-71.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   46 citations  
  • Defeasible logic programming: DeLP-servers, contextual queries, and explanations for answers.Alejandro J. García & Guillermo R. Simari - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (1):63-88.
    Argumentation represents a way of reasoning over a knowledge base containing possibly incomplete and/or inconsistent information, to obtain useful conclusions. As a reasoning mechanism, the way an argumentation reasoning engine reaches these conclusions resembles the cognitive process that humans follow to analyze their beliefs; thus, unlike other computationally reasoning systems, argumentation offers an intellectually friendly alternative to other defeasible reasoning systems. LogicProgrammingisacomputationalparadigmthathasproducedcompu- tationallyattractivesystemswithremarkablesuccessinmanyapplications. Merging ideas from both areas, Defeasible Logic Programming offers a computational reasoning system that uses an argumentation engine (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations