Artificial Intelligence
Abstract argumentation systems
Artificial Intelligence
The Zeno argumentation framework
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice
Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice
Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for how to Build a Person
Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for how to Build a Person
Introduction to Multiagent Systems
Introduction to Multiagent Systems
Discourse Support Systems for Deliberative Democracy
EGOV '02 Proceedings of the First International Conference on Electronic Government
Commitments in the Architecture of a Limited, Rational Agent
PRICAI '96 Proceedings from the Workshop on Intelligent Agent Systems, Theoretical and Practical Issues
Dialogue Frames in Agent Communication
ICMAS '98 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Multi Agent Systems
Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation
Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation
Is there a burden of questioning?
Artificial Intelligence and Law
Dialogues about the burden of proof
ICAIL '05 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument over proposals for action
ArgMAS'04 Proceedings of the First international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
Burden of proof in deliberation dialogs
ArgMAS'09 Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
Hi-index | 0.00 |
In this paper it is shown how tools developed in argumentation theory and artificial intelligence can be applied to the development of a new dialectical analysis of the speech act of making a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. These tools are developed, modified and used to formulate dialogue pre-conditions, defining conditions and post-conditions for the speech act of making a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. The defining conditions set out what is required for a move in a dialogue to count as the making of a proposal by one of the parties. What is required are the conditions that (1) the move fit the requirements of the argumentation scheme for practical reasoning, and (2) the premises are propositions describing common goals of both parties or propositions that they reasonably consider means to achieve these goals. The analysis goes beyond the standard speech act approach by specifying not only the normative requirements for making a well-formed proposal, but also the requirements for responding to it by questioning or criticizing it, and the requirements for defending it.