An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning
Artificial Intelligence
Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks
ICAIL '99 Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Two party immediate response disputes: properties and efficiency
Artificial Intelligence
Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation
Artificial Intelligence
Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation
Journal of Logic and Computation
Computing ideal sceptical argumentation
Artificial Intelligence
An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
A labeling approach to the computation of credulous acceptance in argumentation
IJCAI'07 Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on Artifical intelligence
Translating the Japanese Presupposed Ultimate Fact Theory into Logic Programming
Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2009: The Twenty-Second Annual Conference
Dialectical Proofs for Constrained Argumentation
Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010
Argumentation and answer set programming
Logic programming, knowledge representation, and nonmonotonic reasoning
An application of model checking games to abstract argumentation
LORI'11 Proceedings of the Third international conference on Logic, rationality, and interaction
A generalised framework for dispute derivations in assumption-based argumentation
Artificial Intelligence
Audience-based uncertainty in abstract argument games
IJCAI'13 Proceedings of the Twenty-Third international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
We present an unified methodology for representation and development of dialectical proof procedures in abstract argumentation based on the notions of legal environments and dispute derivations. A legal environment specifies the legal moves of the dispute parties while a dispute derivation describes the procedure structure. A key insight of this paper is that the opponent moves determine the soundness of a dispute while the completeness of a dispute procedure depends on the proponent moves.