Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home
Argumentation Schemes
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 315
  • Cited by
    This book has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Corneli, Joseph Martin, Ursula Murray-Rust, Dave Rino Nesin, Gabriela and Pease, Alison 2019. Argumentation Theory for Mathematical Argument. Argumentation,

    Rigotti, Eddo and Greco, Sara 2019. Inference in Argumentation. Vol. 34, Issue. , p. 59.

    Rigotti, Eddo and Greco, Sara 2019. Inference in Argumentation. Vol. 34, Issue. , p. 169.

    Rigotti, Eddo and Greco, Sara 2019. Inference in Argumentation. Vol. 34, Issue. , p. 207.

    Rigotti, Eddo and Greco, Sara 2019. Inference in Argumentation. Vol. 34, Issue. , p. 93.

    Rigotti, Eddo and Greco, Sara 2019. Inference in Argumentation. Vol. 34, Issue. , p. 247.

    Di Bello, Marcello and Verheij, Bart 2018. Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. p. 447.

    Toniolo, Alice Norman, Timothy J. and Oren, Nir 2018. Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation. Vol. 10757, Issue. , p. 192.

    Efstathiou, Vasiliki and Spinellis, Diomidis 2018. Code review comments. p. 69.

    Böhm, Roger 2018. Substance-based Grammar – The (Ongoing) Work of John Anderson. Vol. 204, Issue. , p. 261.

    Zhang, Guangxuan Zhou, Yilu Purao, Sandeep and Xu, Heng 2018. Advances in Conceptual Modeling. Vol. 11158, Issue. , p. 295.

    Betz, Gregor Hamann, Michael Mchedlidze, Tamara von Schmettow, Sophie Cerutti, Federico and Booth, Richard 2018. Applying argumentation to structure and visualize multi-dimensional opinion spaces. Argument & Computation, Vol. 10, Issue. 1, p. 23.

    Jackson, Sally and Schneider, Jodi 2018. Cochrane Review as a “Warranting Device” for Reasoning About Health. Argumentation, Vol. 32, Issue. 2, p. 241.

    Walton, Douglas 2018. Conflict diagrams for cross-examination dialogues. Argumentation and Advocacy, Vol. 54, Issue. 3, p. 199.

    Prakken, Henry 2018. Introduction to Formal Philosophy. p. 63.

    Stede, Manfred and Schneider, Jodi 2018. Argumentation Mining. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, Vol. 11, Issue. 2, p. 1.

    Alharbi, Ahlam and Freeman, Bradley C. 2018. Towards a performative theory of solidarity discourse. Cogent Arts & Humanities, Vol. 5, Issue. 1, p. 1.

    Svačinová, Iva 2018. The Thesis of the Effectiveness of Quasi-logical Arguments. Argumentation,

    Hoffmann, Michael H. G. 2018. Stimulating Reflection and Self-correcting Reasoning Through Argument Mapping: Three Approaches. Topoi, Vol. 37, Issue. 1, p. 185.

    Galitsky, Boris Ilvovsky, Dmitry and Kuznetsov, Sergey O. 2018. Detecting logical argumentation in text via communicative discourse tree. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, p. 1.

    ×

Book description

This book provides a systematic analysis of many common argumentation schemes and a compendium of 96 schemes. The study of these schemes, or forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, is at the core of argumentation research. Surveying all aspects of argumentation schemes from the ground up, the book takes the reader from the elementary exposition in the first chapter to the latest state of the art in the research efforts to formalize and classify the schemes, outlined in the last chapter. It provides a systematic and comprehensive account, with notation suitable for computational applications that increasingly make use of argumentation schemes.

Refine List
Actions for selected content:
Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Send to Kindle
  • Send to Dropbox
  • Send to Google Drive
  • Send content to

    To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to .

    To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

    Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

    Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

    Please be advised that item(s) you selected are not available.
    You are about to send
    ×

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
×
Bibliography
Abelard, Petrus (1970). Dialectica. In Rijk, Lambertus Marie (Ed.), Petrus Abelardus: Dialectica. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Rodolphus, Agricola (1976). De inventione dialectica libri tres. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
Alberts, Laurie (2001). Causation in toxic tort litigation. Villanova Environmental Law Journal 12: 33–63.
Amgoud, Leila, and Cayrol, Claudette (2002). A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34: 197–216.
Anderson, Terence, Schum, David, and Twining, William (2005). Analysis of Evidence, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
, Aristotle (1851). On Rhetoric. Translated by T. Buckley. London: Henry G. Bohn.
, Aristotle (1937). The Art of Rhetoric. Translated by Freese, John Henry.. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
, Aristotle (1939). Topica. Translated by E. S. Forster. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
, Aristotle (1964). Prior and Posterior Analitics. Translated by John Warrington. New York: Everyman.
, Aristotle (1984). Prior analytics. Translated by Jonathan Barnes. In Barnes, Jonathan (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle, vol. I. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Arnaud, Antoine, and Nicole, Pierre (1964). The Art of Thinking. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merril.
Ashley, Kevin D., and Rissland, Edwina L. (2003). Law, learning and representation. Artificial Intelligence 150: 17–58.
Atkinson, Katie, Bench-Capon, Trevor, and McBurney, Peter (2006). PARMENIDES: Facilitating deliberation in democracies. Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (4): 261–275.
Audi, Robert (1989). Practical Reasoning. London: Routledge.
Barker, Evelyn (1989). Beardsley's theory of analogy. Informal Logic 11 (3): 185–194.
Beardsley, Monroe (1950). Practical Logic. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Beardsley, Monroe (1956). Thinking Straight. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Bench-Capon, Trevor (1998). Specifying the interaction between information sources. Proceedings of DEXA, Vienna, Austria, August 24–8. Berlin: Springer, 425–434.
Bench-Capon, Trevor (2003a). Persuasion in practical argument using value-bas ed argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13: 429–448.
Bench-Capon, Trevor (2003b). Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties without a consensus about values. Informal Logic 22: 231–245.
Bench-Capon, Trevor, and Prakken, Henry (2005). Argumentation. In Lodder, Arno and Oskamp, Anja (eds.), Information Technology and Lawyers: Advanced Technology in the Legal Domain, from Challenges to Daily Routine. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 61–80.
Bench-Capon, Trevor, and Sartor, Giovanni (2003). A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence 97: 97–143.
Best, Joel (2001). Damned Lies and Statistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bex, Floris, Prakken, Henry, Reed, Chris, and Walton, Douglas (2003). Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalizations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 125–165.
Boh, Ivan (1984). Epistemic and alethic iteration in later medieval logic. Philosophia Naturalis 21: 492–506.
Boller, Paul F. (1967). Quotemanship. The Use and Abuse of Quotations for Polemical and Other Purposes. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press.
Braet, Antoine C. (2004). The oldest typology of argumentation schemes. Argumentation 18: 127–148.
Bratman, Michael (1987). Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Brewer, Scott (1996). Exemplary reasoning: Semantics, pragmatics, and the rational force of legal argument by analogy. Harvard Law Review 109: 923–1038.
Brown, William (1989). Two traditions of analogy. Informal Logic 11 (3): 161–172.
Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Mapping dialogue and argumentation in international development: The case of Compendium and OpenLearn LabSpace. Workshop on User Centered Design and International Development, ACM Computer-Human Interaction Conference, April 28, 2007, San Jose. <http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~mikeb/UCDandIDWorkshop/papers/shum.pdf.>
Burbridge, John (1990). Within Reason: A Guide to Non Deductive Reasoning. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press.
Burke, Michael (1985). Unstated premises. Informal Logic 7: 107–118.
Burnyeat, Myles F. (1994). Enthymeme: Aristotle on the logic of persuasion. In Furley, David J. and Nehemas, Alexander (eds.), Aristotle's Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 3–55.
Carberry, Sandra (1990). Plan Recognition in Natural Language Dialogue. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Carbogim, Daniela V., Robertson, David S. and Lee, John R. (2000). Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. The Knowledge Engineering Review 15 (2): 119–149.
Chesnevar, Carlos, McGinnis, Jarred, Modgil, Sanjay, Rahwan, Iyad, Reed, Chris, Simari, Guillermo, South, Matthew, Vreeswijk, Gerard, and Willmott, Steven (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. Knowledge Engineering Review 21 (4): 293–316.
Chorley, Alison, and Bench-Capon, Trevor (2004). AGATHA: Automation of the construction of theories in case law domains. In Gordon, Tom (ed.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2004: The Seventeenth Annual Conference. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 89–98.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1949). De Inventione, De optimo genere oraturum, Topica. Translated by H. Hubbell. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1965). Rhetorica ad Herennium. Translated by Caplan, Harry. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Clark, Keith (1978). Negation as failure. In Gallaire, Hervé and Minker, Jack (eds.), Logic and Data Bases. New York: Plenum Press, 293–322.
Clarke, David S. (1985). Practical Inferences. London: Routledge.
Cohen, Philip R., and Levesque, Hector J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42: 213–261.
Console, Luca, and Torasso, Pietro (1990). Hypothetical reasoning in causal models. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 5: 83–124.
Copi, Irving (1986). Informal Logic. London: Collier Macmillan.
Copi, Irving, and Burgess-Jackson, Keith (1992). Informal Logic. New York: Macmillan.
Copi, Irving, and Cohen, Carl (1998). Introduction to Logic. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Crenshaw, Kimberle (1998). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. Chicago Legal Forum: 139–167.
Pater, Wilhelmus (1965). Les Topiques d'Aristote et la Dialectique Platonicienne. Fribourg, Germany: Éditions de St. Paul.
Dijkstra, Pieter, Bex, Floris, Prakken, Henry, and Vey Mestdagh, Kees (2005). Towards a multi-agent system for regulated information exchange in crime investigations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13: 133–151.
Doyle, Conan Arthur (1932). The Complete Sherlock Holmes. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Dung, Phan Minh (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321–357.
Eemeren, Frans H., and Grootendorst, Rob (1984). Speech Acts in Communicative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.
Eemeren, Frans H., and Grootendorst, Rob (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Eemeren, Frans H., and Kruiger, Tjark (1987). Identifying argumentation schemes. In Eemeren, Frans, Grootendorst, Rob, Blair, Anthony, and Willard, Charles, (eds.), Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches. Dordrecht: Foris, 70–81.
Engel, Morris S. (1980). Analyzing Informal Fallacies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Ennis, Robert H. (1982). Identifying implicit assumptions. Synthese 51: 61–86.
Ennis, Robert H. (2001). Argument appraisal strategy: A comprehensive approach. Informal Logic 21 (2): 97–140.
Farrell, Thomas B. (2000). Aristotle's enthymeme as tacit reference. In Gross, Alan and Walzer, Arthur, (eds.), Rereading Aristotle's Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 93–106.
Fox, John, and Das, Subrata (2000). Safe and Sound: Artificial Intelligence in Hazardous Applications. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Freeman, James B. (1991). Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Argument. Dordrecht: Foris.
Freeman, James B. (1995). The appeal to popularity and presumption by common knowledge. In Hansen, Hans V. and Pinto, Robert C. (eds.), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 263–273.
Garssen, Bart (2001). Argumentation schemes. In Eemeren, Frans (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 81–99.
Gerritsen, Susanne (2001). Unexpressed premises. In Eemeren, Frans (Ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 51–79.
Gilbert, Michael (1991). The enthymeme buster. Informal Logic 13: 159–166.
Gilbert, Michael A. (1997). Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Goldschmidt, Victor (1947). Le Paradigme dans la Dialectique Platonicienne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Gordon, Thomas F. (1995). The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gordon, Thomas F. (2005). A computational model of argument for legal reasoning support systems. In Dunne, Paul and Bench-Capon, Trevor (eds.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, IAAIL Workshop Series. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 53–64.
Gordon, Thomas F., and Walton, Douglas (2006). Pierson vs. Post revisted – a reconstruction using the Carneades Argumentation Framework. In Dunne, Paul and Bench-Capon, Trevor (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 06). Liverpool: IOS Press. 208–219.
Gough, James, and Tindale, Christopher (1985). Hidden or missing premises. Informal Logic 7: 99–106.
Govier, Trudy (1989). Analogies and missing premises. Informal Logic 11 (3): 141–152.
Govier, Trudy ([1992], 2005). A Practical Study of Argument. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.
Grasso, Floriana, Cawsey, Alison, and Jones, Ray (2000). Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: A case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53 (6): 1077–1115.
Green-Pedersen, Niels J. (1984). The Tradition of Topics in the Middle Age. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.
Grennan, Wayne (1997). Informal Logic. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Groarke, Leo (1999). Deductivism within pragma-dialectics. Argumentation 13: 1–16.
Groarke, Leo (2001). Argumentation schemes in pedagogy and AI. In Hansen, Hans and Tindale, Christopher (eds.), Proceedings of the OSSA'2001 Conference on Argument and its Applications. Windsor, Ontario: Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Guarini, Marcello (2004). A defense of non-deductive reconstructions of analogical arguments. Informal Logic 24: 153–168.
Hage, Jaap (2005). The logic of analogy in the law. Argumentation 19: 401–415.
Hamblin, Charles. L. (1970). Fallacies, London: Methuen.
Hart, H. L. A. (1957–58). Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. Harvard Law Review 71: 593–629.
Hart, H. L. A., and Honoré, Tony (1962). Causation in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hastings, Arthur. C. (1963). “A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation.” Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.
Hintikka, Jaakko (1979). Information-seeking dialogues: A model. Erkenntnis 38: 355–368.
Hintikka, Jaakko (1992). The interrogative model of inquiry as a general theory of argumentation. Communication and Cognition 25: 221–242.
Hintikka, Jaakko (1993). Socratic questioning, logic and rhetoric. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 184: 5–30.
Hintikka, Jaakko (1995). The games of logic and the games of inquiry. Dialectica 49: 229–249.
Hitchcock, David (1981). Deduction, induction, and conduction. Informal Logic Newsletter 3 (2): 7–15.
Hitchcock, David (1985). Enthymematic arguments. Informal Logic 7: 83–97.
Hitchcock, David (2005). Good reasoning on the Toulmin model. Argumentation 19: 373–391.
Huber, Peter W. (1991). Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
Hurley, Patrick J. (2000). A Concise Introduction to Logic, 7th ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.
Jackson, Sally, and Jacobs, Scott (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66: 251–165.
Johnson, Ralph H. (2000). Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Johnson, Ralph, and Blair, Anthony ([1983], 1994). Logical Self Defence. Toronto: McGraw-Hill.
Josephson, John R., and Josephson, Susan G. (1994). Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jovicic, Taeda (2002). “Authority-based Argumentative Strategies.” Doctoral dissertation in the Department of Theoretical Philosophy, Uppsala University. Uppsala, Sweden.
Juthe, André (2005). Argument by analogy. Argumentation 19: 1–27.
Katzav, Joel, and Reed, Chris (2004). On argumentation schemes and the natural classification of argument. Argumentation 18: 239–259.
Katzav, Joel, and Reed, Chris (2004a). A Classification system for argument. Department of Applied Computing Technical Report, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland.
Kienpointner, Manfred (1986). Towards a typology of argument schemes. In Eemeren, Frans H. et al. (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Dordrecht: Foris, 275–287.
Kienpointner, Manfred (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog.
Kienpointner, Manfred (1992a). How to classify arguments. In Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A. and Willard, C. A. (eds.), Argumentation Illuminated. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 178–188.
Kienpointner, Manfred (2002). Perelman on causal arguments: The argument from waste. In Eemeren, Frans. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Argumentation. Amsterdam: SicSat, 611–616.
Kirschner, Paul A., Shum, Buckingham, Simon, J., and Carr, Chad S. (eds.) (2003). Visualizing Argumentation. London: Springer-Verlag.
Kneale, William, and Kneale, Martha (1962). The Development of Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kozinski, Alex (2001). How I narrowly escaped insanity. U.C.L.A. Law Review 48: 1293–1304.
Krabbe, Erik (1992). So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuasion dialogues. Argumentation 6: 271–283.
Krabbe, Erik C. W. (1999). Profiles of dialogue. In Gerbrandy, Jelle, Marx, Maarten, Rijke, Maarten, and Venema, Yde, (eds.), JFAK: Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of his 50th Birthday. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 25–36.
Kupperman, Joel (1991). Character. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lenat, Douglas (1995). CYC: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Communications of the ACM 38 (11): 33–38.
Lloyd, Geoffrey E. R. (1966). Polarity and Analogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mackenzie, James D. (1979). Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 117–133.
Mackenzie, James D. (1990). Four dialogue systems. Studia Logica 49: 567–583.
Mackie, John L. (1965). Causes and conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly 2: 245–264.
Mann, William, and Thompson, Sandra (1987). Rhetorical structure theory. Text 8: 243–281.
Maruyama, Magoroh (1968). The second cybernetics: Deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes. In Buckley, Walter (ed.), Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist. Chicago: Aldine, 304–313.
Mathews, Nieves (1996). Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
McBurney, James (1936). Some recent interpretations of the Aristotelian enthymeme. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 21: 489–500.
McBurney, Peter, and Parsons, Simon (2002). Games that agents play. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11 (3): 315–334.
Mitchell, Melanie (2001). Analogy-making as a complex adaptive system. In Segel, Lee and Cohen, Irun (eds.), Design Principles for the Immune System and Other Distributed Autonomous Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, Melanie (2002). Perception and Analogy-making in Complex Adaptive Systems. Available at <http://www.jsmf.org/grants/cs/essays/2002/mitchell.htm.>
Norman, Timothy, Carbogim, Daniela V., Krabbe, Erik C. and Walton, Douglas N. (2003). Argument and multi-agent systems. In Reed, Chris and Norman, Timothy (eds.), Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 15–54.
Parsons, Simon, and Jennings, Nicholas R. (1996). Negotiation through argumentation – a preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems. Menlo Park, Calif.: AAAI Press, 267–274.
Parsons, Simon, Sierra, Carles, and Jennings, Nicholas R. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8 (3): 261–292.
Patry, William (forthcoming). Patry on Copyright. Rochester, N.Y.: West Publishing.
Pearl, Judea (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pearl, Judea (2001). Causal inference in the health sciences: A conceptual introduction. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 2: 189–220.
Pearl, Judea (2002). Bayesianism and causality, or, why I am only a half-Bayesian. In Corfield, David and Williamson, Jan (eds.), Foundations of Bayesianism, Applied Logic Series Volume 24. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 19–36. Document available on the personal web page of Judea Pearl.
Peirce, Charles S. (1965). Collected Papers of Charles S. Peirce. Edited by Hartshorne, Charles and Weiss, Paul. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Perelman, Chaim, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated by Wilkinson, J. and Weaver, P.. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.
Peter of Spain (1980). Language in Dispute. Translated by Dinneen, Francis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pinto, Robert C., Blair, Anthony J. and Parr, Katherine E. (1993). Reasoning: A Practical Guide for Canadian Students. Scarborough, Ont.: Prentice Hall Canada.
Plato, (1835). Phaedo. Translated by Stanford, C.. New York: Hurst and Company.
Plato, (1990). Sophist. Translated by Cobb, William. Savage, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.
Pollock, John L. (1974). Knowledge and Justification. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Pollock, John L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11: 481–518.
Pollock, John L. (1989). How to Build a Person. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Pollock, John L. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Prakken, Henry (1993). An argumentation framework in default logic. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 9: 91–132.
Prakken, Henry (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Prakken, Henry (2001). Modelling defeasibility in law: Logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae 48: 253–271.
Prakken, Henry (2002). Incomplete arguments in legal discourse: A case study. In Bench-Capon, Trevor, Daskalopulu, Aspassia, and Winkels, Radboud (eds.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 93–102.
Prakken, Henry (2005). AI and law, logic and argumentation schemes. Argumentation 19: 303–320. Available at <http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/henry>
Prakken, Henry, and Renooij, Silja (2001). Reconstructing causal reasoning about evidence: A case study. In Verheij, Bart, Lodder, Arno R., Loui, Ronald P., and Muntjewerjj, A. (eds.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 131–142.
Prakken, Henry, and Sartor, Giovanni (1996). A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331–368.
Prakken, Henry, and Sartor, Giovanni (1997). Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7: 25–75.
Prakken, Henry, and Sartor, Giovanni (2004). The three faces of defeasibility in the law. Ratio Juris 17 (1): 118–139.
Prakken, Henry, and Vreeswijk, Gerard (2002). Logics for defeasible argumentation. In Gabbay, Dov and Guenther, Franz (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, Dordercht: Kluwer, 218–319.
Quintilian, Maximus Fabius (1996). Institutio Oratoria. Translated by Butler, H. E.. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Rahwan, Iyad, Zablith, Fouad, and Reed, Chris (2007). Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web. Artificial Intelligenc 171: 897–921.
Ramus, Petrus (1969). Dialecticae Libri Duo. Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum; New York: Da Capo Press.
Reed, Chris, and Norman, Timothy J. (eds.) (2003). Argumentation Machines. Dordrecht,: Kluwer.
Reed, Chris, and Rowe, Glenn (2004). Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools, 13 (4): 961–980.
Reed, Chris, and Rowe, Glenn (2005). Araucaria, Version 3. Available free at <http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria>.
Reed, Chris, and Rowe, Glenn (2001). Araucaria: Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagramming and XML. Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee Technical Report. Available at <http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed>.
Reed, Chris, and Walton, Douglas (2005). Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11: 173–188.
Reed, Chris (1997). Representing and applying knowledge for argumentation in a social context. AI & Society 11 (3–4): 138–154.
Reed, Chris (1998). Dialogue frames in agent communication. In Demazeau, Yves (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (ICMAS'98). Paris: IEEE Press, 246–253.
Reed, Chris (1998). “Generating Arguments in Natural Language.” Ph.D. thesis, University College, London.
Reed, Chris (1999). The role of saliency in generating natural language arguments. In Dean, Thomas (ed.), Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'99). Stockholm: Morgan Kaufmann, 876–883.
Reed, Chris, Norman, Timothy J., and Gabbay, Dov (eds). “Handbook of Argument and Computation.” Unpublished manuscript.
Reiter, Raymond (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13: 81–132.
Rigotti, Eddo, and Rocci, Andrea (2001). Sens – non-sens – contresens. Studies in Communication Sciences 1: 45–80.
Rigotti, Eddo (1997). La retorica classica come una prima teoria della comunicazione. In Bussi, Elena, Bondi, Marina, and Gatta, Francesca (eds.), Understanding Argument: The Informal Logic of Discourse. Bologna: CLUEB, 1–8.
Rigotti, Eddo. “Elementi di Topica.” Unpublished manuscript.
Rigotti, Eddo (2006a). Can classical topics be revived within the contemporary theory of argumentation? Paper presented at the ISSA Conference on Argumentation Theory, Amsterdam, June.
Rissland, Edwina L. (1990). Artificial intelligence and law: stepping stones to a model of legal reasoning. Yale Law Journal 99: 1957–1980.
Robinson, Richard (1962). Plato's Earlier Dialectic, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rowe, Glenn, Reed, Chris, Macagno, Fabrizio, and Walton, Douglas (2006). Araucaria as a tool for diagramming arguments in teaching and studying philosophy. Teaching Philosophy 29 (2): 111–124.
Sadock, Jerrold M. (1997). Modus brevis: The truncated argument. In Beach, Woodford, Fox, Samuel, and Philosoph, Shulamith (eds.), Papers from the 13th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 545–554.
Schauer, Frederick (1995). Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision-Making in Law and Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schellens, Peter Jan, and DeJong, Menno, (2004). Argumentation schemes in persuasive brochures. Argumentation 18: 295–323.
Schupp, Franz (1988). Logical Problems of the Medieval Theory of Consequences. Napoli, Italy: Bibliopolis.
Scriven, Michael (1964). Critical study of “The Structure of Science.” Review of Metaphysics 17: 403–424.
Scriven, Michael (1976). Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Empiricus, Sextus (1933). Outlines of Pyrrhonism. Translated by Bury, R. G.. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Sherwin, Emily (1999). A defense of analogical reasoning in law. University of Chicago Law Review 66: 1179–1198.
Simmons, Reid (1992). The roles of associational and causal reasoning in problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 53 (2–3): 159–207.
Henkemans, Snoeck, Francisca, A (2001). Argumentation structures. In Eemeren, Frans H. (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 101–134.
Stump, Eleonore (1982). Topics: Their development and absorption into the consequences. In Kretzmann, Norman, Kenny, Anthony, and Pinborg, Jan (eds.), Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 315–334.
Stump, Eleonore (1989). Dialectic and Its Place in the Development of Medieval Logic. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Stump, Eleonore (trans.) (1978). Boethius' “De topicis differentiis.”Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Stump, Eleonore (trans.) (1988). In Ciceronis Topica. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Tardini, Stefano (2005). Endoxa and communities: Grounding enthymematic arguments. Studies in Communication Sciences. Special Issue, “Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction”: 279–294.
Thomson, Judith J. (1971). A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1: 47–66.
Tillers, Peter (2002). Making sense of the process of proof in litigation. In Tillers, Peter. and MacCrimmon, Marilyn (eds.), The Dynamics of Judicial Proof. Heidelberg: Springer, 3–11.
Tolchinsky, Pancho, Modgil, Sanjay, Cortés, Ulises, and Sànchez-Marrè, Miquel (2006). CBR and argument schemes for collaborative decision making. In Dunne, Paul and Bench-Capon, Trevor (eds.), Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 71–82.
Toulmin, Stephen E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, Stephen E., Richard, Rieke, and Janik, Allan (1979). An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan.
Gelder, Tim, and Rizzo, Alberto (2001). Reason!Able across the curriculum. In Is IT an Odyssey in Learning? Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Computing in Education Group of Victoria. Victoria, Australia.
Verheij, Bart, and Hage, Jaap (1994). Reasoning by analogy: A formal reconstruction. In Prakken, H., Muntjewerff, A. J., and Soeteman, A. (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems. Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande, 65–78.
Verheij, Bart (1996). Rules, Reasons and Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maastricht.
Verheij, Bart (1999a). Logic, context and valid inference. Or: Can there be a logic of law? In Herik, Jaap, Moens, Marie-Francine, Bing, Jon, Buggenhout, Bea, Zeleznikow, John, and Grütters, Carolus (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems. JURIX 1999: The Twelfth Conference. Available at <http://citeseer.jst.psu.edu/verheij99logic.html>.
Verheij, Bart (1999). Automated argument assistance for lawyers. In The Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law: Proceedings of the Conference (June 14–17, Oslo, Norway). New York: ACM, 43–52. Available at <bart.verheij@metajur.unimaas.nl, http://www.metajur.unimaas.nl/~bart>.
Verheij, Bart (2001). Legal decision making as dialectical theory construction with argumentation schemes. In ICAIL 2001: The Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: ACM, 225–226. The full paper is available at <http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications/pdf/argsch.pdf>.
Verheij, Bart (2003). Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: Towards a methodology for the investigation of argumentation schemes. In Eemeren, Frans, Blair, Anthony, Willard, Charles., and Henkemans, Francisca Snoeck (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA 2002). Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 1033–1037.
Verheij, Bart (2003a). DefLog: On the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation 13: 319–346. Available at <http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications.htm>.
Verheij, Bart (2003b). Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 167–195.
Verheij, Bart (2005). Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press.
Waller, Bruce N. (2001). Classifying and analyzing analogies. Informal Logic 21: 199–218.
Walton, Douglas (1982). Argument: The Logic of Fallacies. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Walton, Douglas (1984). Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.
Walton, Douglas (1987). The ad hominem argument as an informal fallacy. Argumentation 1: 317–331.
Walton, Douglas (1989). Informal Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas (1990). Practical Reasoning. Savage, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.
Walton, Douglas (1991). Bias, critical doubt and fallacies. Argumentation and Advocacy 28: 1–22.
Walton, Douglas (1992). Nonfallacious arguments from ignorance. American Philosophical Quarterly 29: 381–387.
Walton, Douglas (1992a). Slippery Slope Arguments. Newport News, Va.: Vale Press.
Walton, Douglas (1992b). The Place of Emotion in Argument. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, Douglas (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa and London: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, Douglas (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Walton, Douglas (1996a). The argument of the beard. Informal Logic 18: 235–251.
Walton, Douglas (1996b). Arguments from Ignorance. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, Douglas (1997). Appeal to Expert Opinion. University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
Walton, Douglas (1997a). Actions and inconsistency: The closure problem of practical reasoning. In Holmstrom-Hintikka, Ghita and Tuomela, Raimo (eds.), Contemporary Action Theory, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 159–175.
Walton, Douglas (1997b). Appeal to Pity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Walton, Douglas (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, Douglas (1998a). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Walton, Douglas (1999). Appeal to Popular Opinion. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, Douglas (2000). Scare Tactics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Walton, Douglas (2000a). The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese 123: 327–346.
Walton, Douglas (2001). Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic 21: 141–169.
Walton, Douglas (2001a). Enthymemes, common knowledge and plausible inference. Philosophy and Rhetoric 34: 93–112.
Walton, Douglas (2001b). Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic 21: 141–169.
Walton, Douglas (2002). Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, Douglas (2002a). The sunk costs fallacy or argument from waste. Argumentation 16: 473–503.
Walton, Douglas (2002b). Are some modus ponens arguments deductively invalid? Informal Logic 22: 19–46.
Walton, Douglas (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas (2006a). Character Evidence: An Abductive Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
Walton, Douglas (2006b). Argument from appearance: A new dialectical scheme. Logique et Analyse 195: 319–340.
Walton, Douglas (2007). Witness Testimony Evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas, and Reed, Chris (2002). Argumentation schemes and defeasible inferences. In Giuseppe Carenini, Floriana Grasso, and Chris Reed (eds.), Working Notes of the ECAI'2002 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument. Lyon, France, 45–55.
Walton, Douglas, and Gordon, Thomas F. (2005). Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In Dunne, Paul and Bench-Capon, Trevor (eds.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, IAAIL Workshop Series. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 103–111.
Walton, Douglas, and Krabbe, Erik C. W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Walton, Douglas, and Reed, Chris (2003). Diagramming, argumentation schemes and critical questions. In Eemeren, Frans H., Blair, J. Anthony, Willard, Charles A., and Henkemans, A. Francisca Snoek (eds.), Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 195–212.
Walton, Douglas, and Reed, Chris (2005). Argumentation schemes and enthymemes. Synthese 145, 2005, 339–370.
Walton, Douglas, Prakken, Henry, and Reed, Chris (2003). Argumentation schemes and generalizations in reasoning about evidence. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Edinburgh, 2003. New York: ACM, 32–41.
Warnick, Barbara (2000). Two systems of invention: The topics in the Rhetoric and The New Rhetoric. In Gross, Alan G. and Walzer, Arthur E., (eds.), Rereading Aristotle's “Rhetoric.”Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 107–129.
Weinreb, Lloyd L. (2005). Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Weitzenfeld, Julian (1984). Valid reasoning from analogy. Philosophy of Science 51 (1): 137–149.
Wells, Simon (2007). “Formal Dialectical Games in Multiagent Argumentation,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland.
,William of Ockham (1966). Introduction to Logic. Translated by Kretzmann, Norman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Windes, Russel R., and Hastings, Arthur (1965). Argumentation and Advocacy. New York: Random House.
Woods, John, and Walton, Douglas. (1982). Argument: The Logic of Fallacies. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Wooldridge, Michael, and Jennings, Nicholas R. (1995). Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review 10 (2): 115–152.
Wooldridge, Michael (2000). Reasoning about Rational Agents. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Wooldridge, Michael (2002). An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems. Chichester: Wiley.
Wright, Richard W. (1985). Causation in tort law. California Law Review 73: 1735–1828.
Yu, Bin, and Singh, Munindar P. (2000). A social mechanism of reputation management in electronic communities. In Klusch, Matthias and Kerschberg, Larry (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1860. London: Springer, 154–165.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed