Opportunities of computer-mediated legal argument in education

Argumentation is a key activity of lawyers. Therefore in law school teaching argumentation is essential. Information technology can provide useful support in argumentation courses. New opportunities come from a recent topic of research in the field AI Law, viz. computer-mediated legal argument e.g., Gordon, Lodder, Loui. The starting point for the research on computer- mediated legal argument is that a computer system can support lawyers by mediating the process in which they draft and generate arguments the system can administer and supervise the argument process by keeping track of the reasons adduced and the conclusions drawn, and by checking whether the users of the system obey the pertaining rules of argument, e.g., those related to the division of burden of proof. Computer-mediated legal argument poses a new problem how should an argument be presented to the users of the mediating system Especially with regards to recently developed logical tools e.g., Hage, Prakken, Sartor, Verheij, there is little experience with argument presentation. There is a natural division of approaches to argument presentation in two classes the verbal and the visual approaches. In the verbal approach, the argument is mainly presented in a verbal style, for instance in the form of a text or a written-out dialog. In the visual approach, the argument is mainly presented in a visual style, for instance in the form of a tree of sentences. In the paper, we reconstruct elements of a Dutch Supreme Court case on tort law March 20, 1992 and its sequel at the Court of Justice of The Hague September 15, 1994 in two prototypical systems for the mediation of legal argument. The first system takes the verbal approach; the second system takes the visual approach. We discuss the opportunities of the two approaches for teaching legal argument. Our conclusion is that neither approach is fully satisfactory for teaching legal argument if it is taken to its extreme, but that a hybrid combination of verbal and visual elements should be striven for. Proceedings of the BILETA- conference - March 27-28, 1998,Dublin, Ireland.

[1]  T. Gordon The Pleadings Game , 1993, ICAIL '93.

[2]  Jaap Hage,et al.  Reasoning with Rules , 1997 .

[3]  Ronald Prescott Loui,et al.  Progress on Room 5: a testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[4]  Arno R. Lodder,et al.  DiaLaw: a dialogical framework for modeling legal reasoning , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[5]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[6]  John L. Pollock,et al.  Defeasible Reasoning , 2020, Synthese Library.

[7]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument , 1997 .

[8]  R. P. Loui Ampliative Inference, Computation, and Dialectic , 1989 .

[9]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Handbook of Argumentation Theory , 1987 .

[10]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  Handbook of Argumentation Theory: A Critical Survey of Classical Backgrounds and Modern Studies , 1987 .

[11]  John R. Searle,et al.  Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language , 1970 .

[12]  A. Lodder DiaLaw : on legal justification and dialog games , 1998 .

[13]  Jaap Hage,et al.  Logical tools for legal argument: a practical assessment in the domain of tort , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[14]  Robert Alexy,et al.  The Foundation of Legal Reasoning (I) , 1981 .

[15]  F. H. van Eemeren,et al.  Argumentatietheorie. - 2e, geheel herz. dr. , 1981 .

[16]  J. Hage Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic , 1996 .

[17]  Jaap Hage,et al.  Monological reason-based logic: a low level integration of rule-based reasoning and case-based reasoning , 1993, ICAIL '93.

[18]  Hajime Yoshino,et al.  The systematization of legal meta-inference , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[19]  H. B. Verheij Rules, reasons, arguments : formal studies of argumentation and defeat , 1996 .

[20]  Peter Clark,et al.  A model of argumentation and its application in a cooperative expert system , 1991 .

[21]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[22]  Judith Wusteman Philosophy and AI: Essays at the Interface , 1992 .

[23]  Ronald Prescott Loui,et al.  Process and Policy: Resource‐Bounded NonDemonstrative Reasoning , 1998, Comput. Intell..

[24]  Gerard Vreeswijk,et al.  Abstract Argumentation Systems , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[25]  J. Pollock Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person , 1995 .

[26]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law , 1997 .