Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation

This article carries out a formal study of dialogue games for argumentation. A formal framework for such games is proposed which imposes an explicit reply structure on dialogues, where each dialogue move either attacks or surrenders to some earlier move of the other participant. The framework is flexible in several respects. It allows for different underlying logics, alternative sets of locutions and more or less strict rules for when they are allowed. In particular, it allows for varying degrees of coherence and flexibility when it comes to maintaining the focus of a dialogue. Its formal nature supports the study of formal properties of specific dialogue protocols, especially on how they respect the underlying logic.

[1]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Properties and Complexity of Some Formal Inter-agent Dialogues , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[2]  Thomas F. Gordon,et al.  Pleadings game - an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice , 1995 .

[3]  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..

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

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

[6]  O. Oha.  Fallacies , 2005 .

[7]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Gerhard Brewka,et al.  Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus , 2001, J. Log. Comput..

[9]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure , 2001, ICAIL '01.

[10]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Relating Protocols For Dynamic Dispute With Logics For Defeasible Argumentation , 2000, Synthese.

[11]  A. Lodder.  DiaLaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation , 1999 .

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

[13]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning , 1995 .

[14]  I. Angelelli.  The Techniques of Disputation in the History of Logic , 1970 .

[15]  Jaap Hage,et al.  Hard cases: A procedural approach , 1993, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[16]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment In Dialogue , 1995 .

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

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

[19]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A method for the computational modelling of dialectical argument with dialogue games , 2000, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[20]  Hector Geffner,et al.  Conditional Entailment: Bridging two Approaches to Default Reasoning , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Jim D. Mackenzie,et al.  Question-begging in non-cumulative systems , 1979, J. Philos. Log..

[22]  Jim D. Mackenzie,et al.  Four dialogue systems , 1990, Stud Logica.

[23]  Erik C. W. Krabbe,et al.  The Problem Of Retraction In Critical Discussion , 2001, Synthese.

[24]  Thomas T. Ballmer,et al.  Speech act classification , 1980 .

[25]  Alex M. Andrew,et al.  Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems , 2002 .

[26]  Lauri Carlson.  Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis , 1982 .

[27]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logics for Defeasible Argumentation , 2001 .

[28]  Peter McBurney,et al.  Games That Agents Play: A Formal Framework for Dialogues between Autonomous Agents , 2002, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[29]  Henry Prakken,et al.  On Dialogue Systems with Speech Acts, Arguments, and Counterarguments , 2000, JELIA.

[30]  Gerhard Brewka.  Reasoning about Priorities in Default Logic , 1994, AAAI.

[31]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Modelling dialogues using argumentation , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems.