In many cases of disagreement, particularly in situations involving practical reasoning, it is impossible to demonstrate conclusively that either party is wrong. The role of argument in such cases is to persuade rather than to prove, demonstrate or refute. Following Perelman, we argue that persuasion in such cases relies on a recognition that the strength of an argument depends on the social values that it advances, and that whether the attack of one argument on another succeeds depends on the comparative strength of the values advanced by the arguments concerned. To model this we extend the standard notion of Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) to Value-based Argumentation Frameworks (VAFs). After defining VAFs we explore their properties, and show how they can provide a rational basis for the acceptance or rejection of arguments, even where this would appear to be a matter of choice in a standard AF. In particular we show that in a VAF certain arguments can be shown to be acceptable however the relative strengths of the values involved are assessed. This means that disputants can concur on the acceptance of arguments, even when they differ as to which values are more important, and hence that we can identify points for which persuasion should be possible. We illustrate the above using an example moral debate. We then show how factual considerations can be admitted to our framework and discuss the possibility of persuasion in the face of uncertainty and disagreement as to values.

Over the last ten years, argumentation has come to be increasingly central as a core study within Artificial Intelligence (AI). The articles forming this volume reflect a variety of important trends, developments, and applications covering a range of current topics relating to the theory and applications of argumentation. Our aims in this introduction are, firstly, to place these contributions in the context of the historical foundations of argumentation in AI and, subsequently, to discuss a number of themes that have emerged in recent years resulting in a significant broadening of the areas in which argumentation based methods are used. We begin by presenting a brief overview of the issues of interest within the classical study of argumentation: in particular, its relationshipin terms of both similarities and important differences-to traditional concepts of logical reasoning and mathematical proof. We continue by outlining how a number of foundational contributions provided the basis for the formulation of argumentation models and their promotion in AI related settings and then consider a number of new themes that have emerged in recent years, many of which provide the principal topics of the research presented in this volume.

No abstract

No abstract

ABSTRACT. In this paper we consider persuasion in the context of practical reasoning, and discuss the problems associated with construing reasoning about actions in a manner similar to reasoning about beliefs. We propose a perspective on practical reasoning as presumptive justification of a course of action, along with critical questions of this justification, building on the account of Walton. From this perspective, we articulate an interaction protocol, which we call PARMA, for dialogues over proposed actions based on this theory. We outline an axiomatic semantics for the PARMA Protocol, and discuss two implementations which use this protocol to mediate a discussion between humans. We then show how our proposal can be made computational within the framework of agents based on the Belief-Desire-Intention model, and illustrate this proposal with an example debate within a multi agent system.

No abstract

In this article we offer a formal account of reasoning with legal cases in terms of argumentation schemes. These schemes, and undercutting attacks associated with them, are formalized as defeasible rules of inference within the ASPIC+ framework. We begin by modelling the style of reasoning with cases developed by Aleven and Ashley in the CATO project, which describes cases using factors, and then extend the account to accommodate the dimensions used in Rissland and Ashley's earlier HYPO project. Some additional scope for argumentation is then identified and formalized.

In order to support semantic interoperation in open environments, where agents can dynamically join or leave and no prior assumption can be made on the ontologies to align, the different agents involved need to agree on the semantics of the terms used during the interoperation. Reaching this agreement can only come through some sort of negotiation process. Indeed, agents will differ in the domain ontologies they commit to; and their perception of the world, and hence the choice of vocabulary used to represent concepts. We propose an approach for supporting the creation and exchange of different arguments, that support or reject possible correspondences. Each agent can decide, according to its preferences, whether to accept or refuse a candidate correspondence. The proposed framework considers arguments and propositions that are specific to the matching task and are based on the ontology semantics. This argumentation framework relies on a formal argument manipulation schema and on an encoding of the agents' preferences between particular kinds of arguments.