Aakhus, M. (2006). The Act and Activity of Proposing in Deliberation. In Riley, P. (ed.), Engaging Argument: Selected Papers from the 2005 National Communication Association Summer Conference on Argumentation. Washington, DC: National Communication Association, 402–408.Google Scholar

Achinstein, P. (1983). The Nature of Explanation. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Anscombe, E. (1957). Intention. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Aristotle, (1912). Topics. In The Works of Aristotle Translated into English, ed. Ross, W. D.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aristotle, (1939). Topics. Trans. Forster, E. S., Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Aristotle, (1955). On Sophistical Refutations. Trans. Forster, E. S., Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aristotle, (1968). Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Rackham, H., Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Atkinson, K. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2007). Practical Reasoning as Presumptive Argumentation Using Action Based Alternating Transition Systems, Artificial Intelligence, 171, 855–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atkinson, K. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2008). Addressing Moral Problems through Practical Reasoning, Journal of Applied Logic, 6, 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and McBurney, P. (2004a). Justifying Practical Reasoning, Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004), ECAI 2004, Valencia, Spain, 87–90.Google Scholar

Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and McBurney, P. (2004b). PARMENIDES: Facilitating Democratic Debate, Electronic Government, ed. Traunmuller, R., Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), 3183. Third International Conference on eGovernment (EGOV 2004), DEXA 2004. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and McBurney, P. (2004c). Persuasive Political Argument, Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2005), ed. Grasso, F., Reed, C., and Kibble, R., Edinburgh, 2005, 44–51.Google Scholar

Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and McBurney, P. (2006). Computational Representation of Practical Argument, Synthese, 152(2), 157–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and Walton, D. (2013). Distinctive Features of Persuasion and Deliberation Dialogues, Argument and Computation, 4(2), 2013, 105–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Audi, R. (1989). Practical Reasoning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bartley, W. (1962). The Retreat to Commitment. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar

Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2003a). Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks, Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2003b). Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue between Parties without a Consensus about Values, Informal Logic, 22, 231–245.Google Scholar

Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and Atkinson, K. (2009). Abstract Argumentation and Values. Argumentation and Artificial Intelligence. Ed. Rahwan, I. and Simari, G., Berlin: Springer, 45–64.Google Scholar

Bex, F. J. (2011). Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence: A Formal Hybrid Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bex, F. J., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and Atkinson, K. (2009). Did He Jump or Was He Pushed?, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 17, 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bex, F. J. and Budzynska, K. (2010). Argumentation and Explanation in the Context of Dialogue, Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Computational Models of Natural Argument, 1–4: www.florisbex.com/papers/CMNA10.pdf.

Bex, F. J. and Walton, D. (2012). Burdens and Standards of Proof for Inference to the Best Explanation: Three Case Studies, Law, Probability and Risk, 11(2–3), 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bex, F. J. and Walton, D. (2013). Combining Explanation and Argumentation in Dialogue, Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Models of Argument. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Birdsell, D. S. and Groarke, L. (1996). Toward a Theory of Visual Argument, Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 1–10.Google Scholar

Black, E. and Hunter, A. (2007). A Generative Inquiry Dialogue System, Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, ed. Huhns, M. and Shehory, O., 1010–1017.

Black, E. and Hunter, A. (2009). An Inquiry Dialogue System. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 19(2):173–209. Springer. DOI 10.1007/s10458-008-9074-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bratman, M. (1987). Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Bratman, M. (1992). Shared Cooperative Activity, The Philosophical Review, 101(2), 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bratman, M. (2014). Shared Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bratman, M., Israel, D., and Pollack, M. (1988). Plans and Resource-bounded Practical Reasoning, Computational Intelligence, 4, 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, H. (1988). Rationality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Burke, M. (1985). Unstated Premises, Informal Logic, 7, 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Calfee, J. E. (2002). Public Policy Issues in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21(2), 174–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cassens, J. and Kofod-Petersen, A. (2007). Designing Explanation-Aware Systems: The Quest for Explanation Patterns, Explanation-Aware Computing: Papers from the 2007 AAAI Workshop, Technical Report WS-07-06. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, 20–27.Google Scholar

Cawsey, A. (1992). Explanation and Interaction: The Computer Generation of Explanatory Dialogues. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Clarke, D. S. (1985). Practical Inferences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Collingwood, R. (1946). The Idea of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cooke, E. F. (2006). Peirce's Pragmatic Theory of Inquiry. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Copi, I. M. and Cohen, C. (1990). Introduction to Logic. th edn. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copi, I. M. and Cohen, C. (2005). Introduction to Logic. th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educational.Google Scholar

Dragoni, A. F., Giorgini, P., and Serafini, L. (2002). Mental States Recognition from Communication, Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(1), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dray, W. (1964). Philosophy of History. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Dung, P. (1995). On the Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dunne, P. E., Doutre, S., and Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2005). Discovering Inconsistency through Examination Dialogues. Proceedings IJCAI-05, Edinburgh, 1560–1561.Google Scholar

Ehrlich, E., Flexner, S., Carruth, G., and Hawkins, J. (1980). Oxford American Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Engel, P. (ed.) (2000). Believing and Accepting. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ennis, R. (1982). Identifying Implicit Assumptions, Synthese, 51, 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ehrlich, E., Berg Flexner, S., Carruth, G., and Hawkins, J. M. (eds.) (1979). The Oxford American Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Garner, B. (2009). Black's Law Dictionary, th ed. St Paul: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar

Gilbert, M. (1990). Walking Together: A Paradigmatic Social Phenomena, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 15, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Girle, R.Hitchcock, D., McBurney, P., and Verheij, B. (2003). Decision Support for Practical Reasoning: A Theoretical and Computational Perspective, in Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation, ed. Reed, C. and Norman, T.. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 58–84.Google Scholar

Gordon, D. and Niznik, J. (eds.) (1998). Criticism and Defense of Rationality in Contemporary Philosophy. Amsterdam, Rodopi.Google Scholar

Gordon, T. F. (2010). The Carneades Argumentation Support System, in Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation, ed. Reed, C. and Tindale, C. W.. London: College Publications.Google Scholar

Gordon, T. F. and Karacapilidis, N. I. (1997). The Zeno Argumentation Framework. In Proceedings of 6th International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL-1997). New York: ACM Press, 10–18.Google Scholar

Gordon, T. F. and Richter, G. (2002). Discourse Support Systems for Deliberative Democracy, in eGovernment: State of the Art and Perspectives (EGOV), ed. Traunmuller, Roland and Lenk, Lalus, Aix-en-Provence: Springer Verlag, 248–255.Google Scholar

Gordon, T. F. and Walton, D. (2006). The Carneades Argumentation Framework, in Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, ed. Dunne, P. E. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 195–207.Google Scholar

Gordon, T. F. and Walton, D. (2009). Proof Burdens and Standards, in Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, ed. Rahwan, I. and Simari, G.. Berlin: Springer, 239–260.Google Scholar

Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., and Walton, D. 2007. The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof, Artificial Intelligence, 171, 875–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gough, J. and Tindale, C. (1985). Hidden or Missing Premises, Informal Logic, 7, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation, in Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, ed. Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L.. New York: Academic Press, 1975, 43–58.Google Scholar

Groarke, L. (2009). Informal Logic, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal

Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen, 1970.Google Scholar

Hamblin, C. L. (1971). Mathematical Models of Dialogue, Theoria, 37, 130–155.Google Scholar

Hannon, M. (2014). Fallibilism and the Value of Knowledge, Synthese, 191(6), 1119–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hare, R. M. (1971). Practical Inferences. London: Macmillan, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation, in Hempel, C., Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press, 331–496.Google Scholar

Hitchcock, D. (1985). Enthymematic Arguments, Informal Logic, 7, 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hitchcock, D. (1991). Some principles of rational mutual inquiry. In van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., and Willard, C. A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, 236–243. Amsterdam: SICSAT: International Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar

Hitchcock, D. (2002). Pollock on Practical Reasoning, Informal Logic, 22, 247–256.Google Scholar

Hitchcock, D., McBurney, P., and Parsons, S. (2001). A Framework for Deliberation Dialogues, Proceedings of the 4th OSSA (Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation) Conference, 2001, 1–24. www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/deliberationdialogues.pdf

Horty, J. and Belnap, N. (1995). The Deliberative Stit: A Study of Action, Omission, Ability and Obligation, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24, 1995, 583–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jonsen, A. R. and Toulmin, S. (1988). The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Josephson, J. R. and Josephson, S. G. (1994). Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kauffeld, F. J. (1995). The Persuasive Force of Arguments on Behalf of Proposals, Amsterdam, SicSat, Analysis and Evaluation. In Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. 2.Google Scholar

Kauffeld, F. J. (1998). Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing, Argumentation, 12, 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kok, E., Meyer, J., Prakken, H., and Vreeswijk, G. (2010). A Formal Argumentation Framework for Deliberation Dialogues, in Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., and Parsons, S. (eds.). Berlin: Springer, 73–90.Google Scholar

Krabbe, E. C. W. (2013). Topical Roots of Formal Dialectic, Argumentation, 27(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kukafka, R. (2005). Tailored Health Communication, in Consumer Health Informatics: Informing Consumers and Improving Health Care, ed. Lewis, D., Eysenbach, G., Stavri, Z., and Jimison, H., New York: Springer, 22–33.Google Scholar

Lascher, E. L. (1999). The Politics of Automobile Insurance Reform: Ideas, Institutions, and Public Policy in North America. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Leake, D. B. (1992). Evaluating Explanations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Leonard, D. P. (2001). Character and Motive in Evidence Law, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 34, 439–536.Google Scholar

Lexchin, J. and Mintzes, B. (2002). Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs: The Evidence Says No, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(2), 194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., and Parsons, S. (2007). The Eightfold Way of Deliberation Dialogue, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22, 95–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moore, J. D. (1995). Participating in Explanatory Dialogues. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Moulin, B., Irandoust, H., Belanger, M., and Desbordes, G. (2002). Explanation and Argumentation Capabilities, Artificial Intelligence Review, 17, 169–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paglieri, F. and Castelfranchi, C. (2005). Arguments as Belief Structures, in The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, ed. Hitchcock, D. and Farr, D., Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 356–367.Google Scholar

Panzarasa, P., Jennings, N. R., and Norman, T. J. (2002). Formalizing Collaborative Decision-making and Practical Reasoning in Multi-agent Systems. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(1), 55–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1931). Collected Papers. Edited by Hartshorne, C. and Weiss, P.. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Peirce, S. (1984). Writings of Charles S. Peirce, vol. 2. Edited by Moore, E. C.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Pennington, N. and Hastie, R. (1993). The Story Model for Juror Decision Making, in Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making, ed. Hastie, R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 192–221.Google Scholar

Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge: London.Google Scholar

Prakken, H. (2006), Formal Systems for Persuasion Dialogue, The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21, 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, H. (2010). An Abstract Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments, Argument and Computation, 1(2), 93–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, H. (2011). An Overview of Formal Models of Argumentation and Their Application in Philosophy, Studies in Logic, 4(1), 65–86.Google Scholar

Rahwan, I. and Amgoud, L. (2006). An Argumentation-based Approach for Practical Reasoning. Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Hakodate, Japan and New York: ACM Press, 347–354.Google Scholar

Reed, C. and Rowe, G. (2002). Araucaria: Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagramming and XML. Technical Report, Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee.Google Scholar

Reed, C. and Norman, T. J. (2003). Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Reed, C. and Rowe, G. (2004). Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation, International Journal of AI Tools, 14(3–4), 961–980. Retrieved from http://araucaria.computing.dundee.ac.uk/doku.php.Google Scholar

Reiter, R. (1980). A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1–2), 81–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rescher, N. (1966). Practical Reasoning and Values, The Philosophical Quarterly, 16(63), 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rescher, N. (1988). Rationality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Rescher, N. (2003). Epistemology: An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany: Sate University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Rubinelli, S. (2005). Ask Your Doctor: Argumentation in Advertising of Prescription Medicines, Studies in Communication Sciences, 5(2), 75–98.Google Scholar

Rubinelli, S., Nakamoto, K., and Schulz, P. K. (2007). Reading Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Medicine: A Qualitative Study from Argumentation Theory on Its Dialectical and Rhetorical Features, in Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. van Eemeren, Frans et al., Amsterdam SicSat, 1211–1215.Google Scholar

Rubinelli, S., Nakamoto, K., and Schulz, P. K. (2008). The Rabbit in the Hat: Dubious Argumentation and the Persuasive Effects of Prescription Drug Advertising, Communication & Medicine, 5 (1), 49–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Russell, S. J. and Norvig, P. (1995). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Sartor, G. (2005). Legal Reasoning: A Cognitive Approach to the Law. Springer: Berlin.Google Scholar

Schank, R. C. (1986). Explanation Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and Creatively. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Schank, R. C. and Riesback, C. K. (1981). Inside Computer Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Schank, R. C., Kass, A., and Riesbeck, C. K. (1994). Inside Case-Based Explanation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1994.Google Scholar

Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., and McLaren, B. M. (2009). Computer-Supported Argumentation: A Review of the State of the Art, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 1–67.Google Scholar

Scriven, M. (1976) Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Searle, J. (1990). Collective Intentions and Actions, in Intentions in Communication. Cambridge: MIT Press, 401–415.Google Scholar

Searle, J. (2001). Rationality in Action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Segerberg, K. (1984). Towards an Exact Philosophy of Action, Topoi, 3, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simon, H. (1981). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Slade, C. (2003). Seeing Reasons: Visual Argumentation in Advertisements, Argumentation, 17, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thorsrud, H. (2002). Cicero on His Academic Predecessors: The Fallibilism of Arcesilaus and Carneades, Journal of the History of Philosophy, 40, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Toniolo, A. (2013). Models of Argument for Deliberative Dialogue in Complex Domains. PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen.

Toniolo, A., Norman, T. J., and Sycara, K. (2012). An Empirical Study of Argumentation Schemes for Deliberative Dialogue. In De Raedt, L., Bessiere, C., Dubois, D., Doherty, P., Frasconi, P., Heintz, F., and Lucas, P. (eds.), ECAI 2012: 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press, vol. 242, 756–761.Google Scholar

Toniolo, A., Norman, T., and Sycara, K. (2013). An Empirical Study of Argumentation Schemes for Deliberative Dialogue, in Computational Models of Natural Argument. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Trout, J. D. (2002). Scientific Explanation and the Sense of Understanding, Philosophy of Science, 69 (2), 212–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tuomela, R. (2007). The Philosophy of Sociality: The Shared Point of View. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tuomela, R. (2013). Social Ontology: Collective Intentionality and Group Agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tuomela, R. and Miller, K. (1988). We-Intentions, Philosophical Studies, 53, 367–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Communicative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Gijzel, B. and Prakken, H. (2012). Relating Carneades with Abstract Argumentation via the ASPIC+ Framework for Structured Argumentation, Argument and Computation, 3(1), 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Verheij, B. (2003a). DefLog: on the Logical Interpretation of Prima Facie Justified Assumptions, Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3), 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Verheij, B. (2003b). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Verheij, B. (2005). Virtual Arguments. On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.Google Scholar

Verheij, B. (2007). Argumentation Support Software: Boxes-and-arrows and Beyond, Law, Probability and Risk, 6, 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Von Wright, G. H. (1963). Practical Inference, The Philosophical Review, 72, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Von Wright, G. H. (1972). On So-Called Practical Inference, Acta Sociologica, 15, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wagenaar, W. A., van Koppen, P. J., and Crombag, H. F. M. (1993). Anchored Narratives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

Wallace, R. J. (2014). Practical Reason, The Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyZalta, E. N. (ed.): http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/practical-reason/

Walton, D. (1990a). Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven, Knowledge-Based, Action-Guiding Argumentation. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (1990b). What Is Reasoning? What Is an Argument?, Journal of Philosophy, 87, 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (1997a). Actions and Inconsistency: The Closure Problem of Practical Reasoning, in Contemporary Action Theory, Vol. 1. ed. Holmstrom-Hintikka, G. and Tuomela, R.. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 159–175.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (1997b). Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (1998a). The New Dialectic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (1998b). Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (2004a). Abductive Reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (2004b). Relevance in Argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (2004c). A New Dialectical Theory of Explanation, Philosophical Explorations, 7, 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (2005). How to Make and Defend a Proposal in Deliberation Dialogue, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 14, 177–239.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (2007a). Evaluating Practical Reasoning, Synthese, 157, 197–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (2007b). Dialogical Models of Explanation, Explanation-Aware Computing: Papers from the 2007 AAAI Workshop, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Technical Report WS-07-06, Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, 1–9.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (2008). Three Bases for the Enthymeme: A Dialectical Theory, Journal of Applied Logic, 6, 361–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (2011a). Telological Argumentation to and from Motives, Law, Probability and Risk, 10, 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (2011b). A Dialogue System Specification for Explanation, Synthese, 182(3), 349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (2011c). An Argumentation Model of Deliberative Decision-Making, in Technologies for Supporting Reasoning Communities and Collaborative Decision Making: Cooperative Approaches, ed. Yearwood, J. and Stranieri, A., Hershey, Pa., IGI Global, 1–17.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (2011d). Reasoning about Knowledge Using Defeasible Logic, Argument and Computation, 2(2–3), 131–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. and Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue, Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Walton, D. and Reed, C. (2005). Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes, Synthese, 145, 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D., Reed, C., and Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. and Schafer, B. (2006). Arthur, George and the Mystery of the Missing Motive: Towards a Theory of Evidentiary Reasoning about Motives, International Commentary on Evidence, 4(2), 1–47.Google Scholar

Walton, D. and Zhang, N. (2013). The Epistemology of Scientific Evidence, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 21, 173–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D., Norman, T. J., and Toniolo, A. (2015). Missing Phases of Deliberation Dialogue for Real Applications, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin: Springer, 1–20. http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/14ArgMAS.pdfGoogle Scholar

Wigmore, J. H. (1931). The Principles of Judicial Proof, nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar

Wigmore, J. H. (1935). A Student's Textbook of the Law of Evidence. Chicago: The Foundation Press.Google Scholar

Wigmore, J. H. (1940). Evidence in Trials at Common Law. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar

Wilson, B. R. (1970). Rationality. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Wooldridge, M. (2000). Reasoning about Rational Agents. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Wooldridge, M. (2002). An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Wooldridge, M. and Jennings, N. (1995). Intelligent Agents: Theory and Practice, The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10, 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar