Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. PARMENIDES: Facilitating deliberation in democracies. [REVIEW]Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon & Peter McBurney - 2006 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (4):261-275.
    Governments and other groups interested in the views of citizens require the means to present justifications of proposed actions, and the means to solicit public opinion concerning these justifications. Although Internet technologies provide the means for such dialogues, system designers usually face a choice between allowing unstructured dialogues, through, for example, bulletin boards, or requiring citizens to acquire a knowledge of some argumentation schema or theory, as in, for example, ZENO. Both of these options present usability problems. In this paper, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 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  
  • Translating Toulmin Diagrams: Theory Neutrality in Argument Representation.Chris Reed & Glenn Rowe - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (3):267-286.
    The Toulmin diagram layout is very familiar and widely used, particularly in the teaching of critical thinking skills. The conventional box-and-arrow diagram is equally familiar and widespread. Translation between the two throws up a number of interesting challenges. Some of these challenges (such as the relationship between Toulmin warrants and their counterparts in traditional diagrams) represent slightly different ways of looking at old and deep theoretical questions. Others (such as how to allow Toulmin diagrams to be recursive) are diagrammatic versions (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments.J. Katzav & C. A. Reed - 2004 - Argumentation 18 (2):239-259.
    We develop conceptions of arguments and of argument types that will, by serving as the basis for developing a natural classification of arguments, benefit work in artificial intelligence. Focusing only on arguments construed as the semantic entities that are the outcome of processes of reasoning, we outline and clarify our view that an argument is a proposition that represents a fact as both conveying some other fact and as doing so wholly. Further, we outline our view that, with respect to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • Logical Models of Argument.Ronald Prescott Loui, Carlos Ivan Ches~Nevar & Ana Gabriela Maguitman - 2000 - ACM Computing Surveys 32 (4):337-383.
    Logical models of argument formalize commonsense reasoning while taking process and computation seriously. This survey discusses the main ideas which characterize di erent logical models of argument. It presents the formal features of a few main approaches to the modeling of argumentation. We trace the evolution of argumentationfrom the mid-80's, when argumentsystems emerged as an alternative to nonmonotonic formalisms based on classical logic, to the present, as argument is embedded in di erent complex systems for real-world applications, and allows more (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   32 citations  
  • Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation.Bart Verheij - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence 150 (1-2):291-324.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations