Because of the need to devise systems for electronic communication on the internet, multi-agent computing is moving to a model of communication as a structured conversation between rational agents. For example, in multi-agent systems, an electronic agent searches around the internet, and collects certain kinds of information by asking questions to other agents. Such agents also reason with each other when they engage in negotiation and persuasion. It is shown in this book that critical argumentation is best represented in this framework by the model of reasoned argument called a dialog, in which two or more parties engage in a polite and orderly exchange with each other according to rules governed by conversation policies. In such dialog argumentation, the two parties reason together by taking turns asking questions, offering replies, and offering reasons to support a claim. They try to settle their disagreements by an orderly conversational exchange that is partly adversarial and partly collaborative.

Because of the need to devise systems for electronic communication on the internet, multi-agent computing is moving to a model of communication as a structured conversation between rational agents. For example, in multi-agent systems, an electronic agent searches around the internet, and collects certain kinds of information by asking questions to other agents. Such agents also reason with each other when they engage in negotiation and persuasion. It is shown in this book that critical argumentation is best represented in this framework by the model of reasoned argument called a dialog, in which two or more parties engage in a polite and orderly exchange with each other according to rules governed by conversation policies. In such dialog argumentation, the two parties reason together by taking turns asking questions, offering replies, and offering reasons to support a claim. They try to settle their disagreements by an orderly conversational exchange that is partly adversarial and partly collaborative.

This book explains how burden of proof and presumption work as powerful devices in argumentation, based on studying many clearly explained legal and non-legal examples. It shows how the latest argumentation-based methods of artificial intelligence can be applied to these examples to help us understand how burdens of proof and presumptions work as devices of legal reasoning. It also shows the reader how to deal with presumptions and burdens of proof in everyday life, as they shift from one side to the other, sometimes confusingly, during a sequence of argumentation.

In this book two of the leading figures in argumentation theory present a view of argumentation as a means of resolving differences of opinion by testing the acceptability of the disputed positions. Their model of a 'critical discussion' serves as a theoretical tool for analyzing, evaluating and producing argumentative discourse. This is a major contribution to the study of argumentation and will be of particular value to professionals and graduate students in speech communication, informal logic, rhetoric, critical thinking, linguistics, and philosophy.

No detailed description available for "Handbook of Argumentation Theory".

This book presents the historical, theoretical and empirical foundations of educational practices involving dialogue and argumentation.

Argumentation is all around us. Letters to the Editor often make points of cons- tency, and “Why” is one of the most frequent questions in language, asking for r- sons behind behaviour. And argumentation is more than ‘reasoning’ in the recesses of single minds, since it crucially involves interaction. It cements the coordinated social behaviour that has allowed us, in small bands of not particularly physically impressive primates, to dominate the planet, from the mammoth hunt all the way up to organized science. This volume puts argumentation on the map in the eld of Arti cial Intelligence. This theme has been coming for a while, and some famous pioneers are chapter authors, but we can now see a broader systematic area emerging in the sum of topics and results. As a logician, I nd this intriguing, since I see AI as ‘logic continued by other means’, reminding us of broader views of what my discipline is about. Logic arose originally out of re ection on many-agent practices of disputation, in Greek Ant- uity, but also in India and China. And logicians like me would like to return to this broader agenda of rational agency and intelligent interaction. Of course, Aristotle also gave us a formal systems methodology that deeply in uenced the eld, and eventually connected up happily with mathematical proof and foundations.