Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus

Abstract

We present a formal model of argumentation based on situation calculus which captures both the logical and the procedural aspects of argumentation processes. The logic is used to determine what is accepted by each agent participating in the discussion and by the group as a whole, on the basis of the speech acts performed during argumentation. Argumentation protocols, also called rules of order, describe declaratively which speech acts are legal in a particular state of the argumentation. We rst discuss argumentation with xed rules of order. Our model tolerates protocol violations but makes it possible to object to illegal actions. In realistic settings the rules of order themselves can at any time become the topic of the debate. We show how meta level argumentation of this kind can be modelled in what we call dynamic argument systems. To illustrate the notions introduced in the paper we present a reconstruction of Rescher's theory of formal disputation and a dynamic argument system with three levels which we use to discuss a murder case.

Medieval Disputationes de obligationibus as Formal Dialogue Systems

“…This latter case arises in ordinary circumstances when agents utilize a form of default reasoning, which is defeasible and nonmonotonic, in that an agent can be forced to accept information which contradicts his previous commitments, requiring that his commitments be revised in order to maintain consistency (cf. Bondarenko et al (1997);Brewka (2001)). In AI contexts, the ability to simulate non-monotonic reasoning is of great importance; monotonic dialogues and discussions are more commonly found in philosophical contexts.…”

A Computational Model for Conversation Policies for Agent Communication

“…Soundness and completeness of these protocols have also been studied. In the same direction, Brewka [6] developed a formal model for argumentation processes that combines nonmonotonic logic with protocols for dispute. Brewka pays more attention to the speech act aspects of disputes and he formalizes dispositional protocols in situation calculus.…”

A formal model of adjudication dialogues

“…This 'procedural turn' was initiated by two papers, Gordon (1993) and Hage et al (1994), and further pursued in e.g. (Bench-Capon;Prakken and Gordon;Lodder;1999;Vreeswijk;Leenes;2001b); see also Brewka (2001). The main focus of this area is the integration of logical models of legal reasoning (especially those using tools from nonmonotonic logic) with dialogue game models of argumentation.…”

“…Most AI & Law work so far has concentrated on two-party dialogues between two adversaries. If the judge's role is modelled at all, it is limited to some very simple activities, such as regulating turntaking (BenchCapon;Bench-Capon et al; or determining the truth of the parties' claims by simply saying "true" or "false" 1994;Brewka;. Yet in actual legal procedures judges have a much more elaborate role.…”