arguments. This does not require theoretical knowledge, and learning how to use Wigmore Charts or Toulmin’s structure of arguments is rather intuitive. Software for visualizing argument structure exists.
We omitted probabilistic models. Moreover, we did not delve into the technicalities, which would ap- peal to logicians (such as the ones from AI & Law), of the internal workings of models and implemented tools for generating and processing arguments, but we cited relevant literature. The present reader only need know that such tools grounded in theory exist: they could be viewed as a black box. What most users, or even designers, of potential applications would see is
an interface. Such interfaces can benefit from multi- media technology. It stands to reason that the mature AI technology of handling argumentation deserves to be applied, and multiagent communication is an area of extant application, which in turn is relevant for networking.
references
Aleven, V., & Ashley, K. D. (1997). Evaluating a learn- ing environment for case-based argumentation skills. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 170-179). New York: ACM Press.
Anderson, T. J. (1999a). The Netherlands criminal justice system. In M. Malsch & J. F. Nijboer (Eds.), Complex cases (pp. 47-67). Amsterdam: THELA THESIS.
Anderson, T. J. (1999b). On generalizations. South Texas Law Review, 40.
0
Anderson, T., & Twining, W. (1991). Analysis of evidence. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1991; Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1991; Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Ashley, K. (1990). Modeling legal argument. Cam-
bridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & McBurney, P. (2005). Persuasive political argument. In F. Grasso, C. Reed, & R. Kibble (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2005), at IJCAI 2005. Edinburgh, Scotland.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2003). Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3), 429-448. Bex, F. J., Prakken, H., Reed, C., & Walton, D. N. (2003). Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence.
Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12, 125-165.
Carenini, G., & Moore, J. (2001). An empirical study of
the influence of user tailoring on evaluative argument
effectiveness. In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001). Seattle, WA.
Carenini, G., Grasso, F., & Reed, C. (Eds.). (2002). Proceedings of the ECAI-2002 Workshop on Compu- tational Models of Natural Argument, at ECAI 2002. Lyon, France.
Carr, C. S. (2003). Using computer supported argu- ment visualization to teach legal argumentation. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 75- 96).London: Springer-Verlag.
Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. L. (1988). IBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transac- tions on Office Information Systems, 4(6), 303-331. Delannoy, J. F. (1999). Argumentation mark-up: A proposal. In Proceedings of the Workshop: Towards Standards and Tools for Discourse Tagging (pp. 18-25). Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved 2005, from http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu//W/W99/
Dunne, P. E., & Bench-Capon, T. (Eds.). (2005). Argu- mentation in AI and law (IAAIL Workshop Series, 2). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Wolff Publishers.
Flowers, M., McGuire, R., & Birnbaum, L. (1982). Adversary arguments and the logic of personal at- tacks. In W. Lehnert & M. Ringle (Eds.), Strategies for natural language processing (pp. 275-294). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Freeman, K., & Farley, A. M. (1996). A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning.
Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3/4), 157-161. Gordon, T. F., & Walton, D. (2006). The Carneades argumentation framework: Using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In Sixth Interna- tional Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, held with ECAI’06. Riva del Garda, Italy. Grasso, F., Reed, C., & Carenini, G. (Eds.). (2004). Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA IV) at ECAI 2004. Valencia, Spain.
Gulotta, G., & Zappalà, A. (2001). The conflict between
prosecution and defense. Information and Communica- tions Technology Law, 10(1), 91-108.
Holmström-Hintikka, G. (2001). Expert witnesses in the model of interrogation. In A. A. Martino & E.
Nissan (Eds.), Software, formal models, and artificial
intelligence for legal evidence. Computing and Infor- matics, 20(6), 555-579.
Kibble, R. (2004). Elements of social semantics for argumentative dialogue. In F. Grasso, C. Reed, & G. Carenini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA IV) at ECAI 2004 (pp. 25-28). Valencia, Spain.
Loui, R. P., & Norman, J. (1995). Rationales and ar- gument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2(3), 159-190.
Loui, R. P., Norman, J., Alpeter, J., Pinkard, D., Craven, D., Lindsay, J., et al. (1997). Progress on room 5: A testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argu- mentation. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 1997) (pp. 207-214). New York: ACM Press.
MacCormick, N. (1995). Argumentation and interpreta- tion in law. Argumentation, 9, 467-480.
Nissan, E., & Shimony, S. E. (1996). TAMBALA-
A
Paglieri, F., & Castelfranchi, C. (2005). Revising be- liefs through arguments. In I. Rahwan, P. Moraitis, & C. Reed (Eds.), Argumentation in multi-agent systems (pp. 78-94). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Parsons, S., & McBurney, P. (2003). Argumentation- based communication between agents. In M. -P. Huget (Ed.), Communication in multiagent systems: Agent communication languages and conversation policies (LNCS 2650). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Poole, P. (2002). Logical argumentation, abduction and Bayesian decision theory. In M. MacCrimmons & P. Tillers (Eds.), The dynamics of judicial proof: Computation, logic, and common sense (pp. 385-396). Heidelberg: Physical-Verlag.
Prakken, H. (1997). Logical tools for modelling legal argument. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Prakken, H. (2001). Modelling reasoning about evi- dence in legal procedure. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2001) (pp. 119-128). New York: ACM Press.
Prakken, H. (2004). Analysing reasoning about evidence with formal models of argumentation. Law, Probability & Risk, 3, 33-50.
Prakken, H., & Renooij, S. (2001). Reconstructing causal reasoning about evidence. In B. Verheij, A. R. Lodder, R. P. Loui, & A. J. Muntjwerff (Eds.), Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2001: The 14th Annual Conference (pp. 131-137). Amsterdam:
IOS Press.
Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (Eds.). (1996). Logical models of legal argumentation. Special issue of Arti- ficial Intelligence and Law, 5, 157-372. Reprinted as Logical models of legal argumentation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (2002). The role of logic in computational models of logic argument: A critical survey. In A. Kakas & F. Sadri (Eds.), Computational logic (LNCS 2048, pp. 342-380). Berlin: Springer- Verlag.
Prakken, H., Reed, C., & Walton, D. N. (2003). Argu- mentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence. In Proceedings ICAIL ’03. New York: ACM Press.
Reed, C., & Norman, T. J. (Eds.). (2003). Argumentation machines: New frontiers in argument and computation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Reed, C. A., & Rowe, G. W. A. (2001). Araucaria: Software for puzzles in argument diagramming and XML (Tech. Rep.). University of Dundee, Dept. of Applied Computing. Retrieved from http://www.computing. dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/
Reed, C. A., & Rowe, G. W. A. (2004). Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, digramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 14(3/4), 961-980.
Rissland, E. L., & Skalak, D. B. (1991). CABARET: Statutory interpretation in a hybrid architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 839-887.
Schum, D. A. (1993). Argument structuring and evi- dence evaluation. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 175-191). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schum, D. (2001). Evidence marshaling for imagina- tive fact investigation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 9(2/3), 165-188.
Sycara, K., & Wooldridge, M. (Eds.). (2005). Argu- mentation in multi-agent systems. Special issue of the Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2).
Thagard, P. (1989). Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(3), 435-467.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (reprints: 1974, 1999).
Twining, W. L. (1999). Necessary but dangerous? Generalizations and narrative in argumentation about ‘facts’ in criminal process. In M. Malsch & J. F. Nij- boer (Eds.), Complex cases (pp. 69-98). Amsterdam: THELA THESIS.
van den Braak, S. W., van Oostendorp, H., Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2006). A critical review of argument visualization tools: Do users become better reasoners? In Sixth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, held with ECAI’06. Riva del Garda, Italy.
Verheij, B. (1999). Automated argument assistance for lawyers. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 1999) (pp. 43-52). New York: ACM Press.
Vreeswijk, G. A. W., Brewka, G., & Prakken, H. (2003). Special issue on computational dialectics: An introduc- tion. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3). Wagenaar, W. A., van Koppen, P. J., & Crombag, H. F. M. (1993). Anchored narratives. Hemel Hempstead, UK; New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf; St. Martin’s Press.
Walton, D. N. (1996a). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Walton, D. N. (1996b). Argument structure: A prag- matic theory. (Toronto Studies in Philosophy). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversa- tional contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Walton, D. N. (2002). Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Wigmore, J. H. (1937). The science of judicial proof as given by logic, psychology, and general experience, and illustrated judicial trials (3rd ed.). Boston: Little,
Brown & Co.
Zeleznikow, J. (2002). Risk, negotiation and argumenta- tion: A decision support system based approach. Law, Probability and Risk: A Journal for Reasoning under Uncertainty, 1(1), 37-48.
key terms
Abductive Inference: Inference to the “best” ex- planation. It departs from deductive inference.
Adversary Argument: “[N]either participant expects to persuade or be persuaded: The participants intend to remain adversaries, and present their argu- ments for the judgment of an audience (which may or may not actually be present). In these arguments, an arguer’s aim is to make his side look good while
making the opponent’s look bad” (Flowers et al., 1982, p. 275). The ABDUL/ILANA program models such arguers (ibid.).
AI & Law: Artificial intelligence as applied to law,
this being an established discipline both within legal
computing and within artificial intelligence.
Anchored Narratives: The theory of anchored narratives was proposed by Wagenaar et al. (1993): narrative is related to evidence by a connection (or anchor), but this is a background generalization, which, critics remarked, only holds heuristically.
Argumentation: How to put forth propositions
in support or against something. An established field in rhetoric, within AI & Law it became a major field
during the 1990s.
Deontic, Deontology: Pertaining to duty and permissibility. Deontic logic has operators for duty. Deontological arguments appeal to principles of right or wrong, ultimate (rather than teleological)principles about what must or ought, or must not or ought not to be or be done.
Generalizations: Or background knowledge, or empirical generalizations: common sense heuristic rules, which apply to a given instance a belief, held concerning a pattern, and are resorted to when, inter- preting the evidence and reconstructing a legal narrative for argumentation in court.
Persuasion Argument: The participants in the dialogue are both willing to be persuaded as well as trying to persuade. This is relevant for computer tools for supporting negotiation.
Teleological: Of an argument (as opposed to de- ontological reasoning): of a “reason given for acting or not acting in a certain way may be on account of what so acting or not acting will bring about. [...] All teleological reasoning presupposes some evaluation” (MacCormick, 1995, p. 468).
Wigmore Charts: A graphic method of structuring legal arguments, currently fairly popular among legal evidence scholars; originally devised in the early 20th