A lightweight formal model of two-phase democratic deliberation

Authors:
Trevor Bench-Capon;Henry Prakken
Affiliations:
Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK;Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University and Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Venue:
Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2010: The Twenty-Third Annual Conference
Year:
2010

Citing 8
Cited 3

On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games

Artificial Intelligence
A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning

ICAIL '05 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks

Artificial Intelligence
Justifying Actions by Accruing Arguments

Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
Comparing sets of positive and negative arguments: Empirical assessment of seven qualitative rules

Proceedings of the 2006 conference on ECAI 2006: 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence August 29 -- September 1, 2006, Riva del Garda, Italy
Using Computational Argumentation to Support E-participation

IEEE Intelligent Systems
Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract

Artificial Intelligence and Law
Reasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks

Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010

Argument schemes for two-phase democratic deliberation

Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Semantic models for policy deliberation

Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Factor-based parent plan support system

Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.01

Visualization

Abstract

A formal two-phase model of democratic policy deliberation is presented, in which in the first phase sufficient and necessary criteria for proposals to be accepted are determined (the 'admissible' criteria') and in the second phase proposals are made and evaluated in light of the admissible criteria resulting from the first phase. Argument schemes for both phases are defined and formalised in a logical framework for structured argumentation. The process of deliberation is abstracted from and it is assumed that both deliberation phases result in a set of arguments and attack and defeat relations between them. Then preferred semantics is used to evaluate the acceptability status of criteria and proposals.