Automating Argumentation for Deliberation in Cases of Conflict of Interest

Authors:
Alison Chorley;Trevor Bench-Capon;Peter McBurney
Affiliations:
Department of Computer Science, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK;Department of Computer Science, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK;Department of Computer Science, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Venue:
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
Year:
2006

Citing 1
Cited 3

Addressing moral problems through practical reasoning

DEON'06 Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Deontic Logic and Artificial Normative Systems

Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems

Artificial Intelligence
Modelling State Intervention in Cases of Conflicting Interests

Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference
Action-based alternating transition systems for arguments about action

AAAI'07 Proceedings of the 22nd national conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 1

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

One approach to deliberation about the choice of what to do in a particular situation is to use an argument scheme based on the practical syllogism to supply a presumptive reason for the action, which is then subjected to a process of critical questioning to see if the presumption can be maintained. In this paper we describe an implemented realisation of this approach. We describe a representation which permits the instantiation of the argument scheme and the generation and consideration of critical questions to it. In order to automate the process we supply operational interpretations of the argument scheme, the critical questions and rebuttals to those questions. Our realisation is illustrated with a detailed example of a particular case.