Synopsis

One of the main goals of information and communications technology is to support the making of practical decisions. Typically, decisions must be made under less than ideal conditions. There is both too much and not enough information. (Consider the problem of “information overload” on the Internet.) Time is the essence; a decision must be made before the issue becomes moot. However much information is available, opinions differ about its truth, relevance or value. Arguments can be made both pro and contra any standpoint. Reasoning can be defeasible: further information can rebut some conclusion. Factual knowledge is not sufficient; goals and values must be considered; Interests may conflict; negotiation may be required. Argumentation provides methods for practical reasoning under these conditions. Argumentation is a broad topic encompassing logic, dialectic and rhetoric. This course will provide an introduction to the modern philosophy of argumentation; computational models of argument; as well as systems, tools and application scenarios which make use of these models. The practical importance of computational models of argument will be illustrated with problems from domains such as engineering (e.g. for “design rationales”), multi-agent systems, law, online dispute resolution, claims processing (“e-government”), and enhancing public participation in political discourses (“e-democracy”).

Lectures and Course Materials

1. Introduction: Scope, Motivation, and Overview
   • Slides
   • Recommended Reading
     1. Bench-Capon, T., and Prakken, H. Argumentation. In Information Technology and Lawyers: Advanced Technology in the Legal Domain, from Challenges to Daily Routine, A. R. Lodder and A. Oskamp, Eds. Springer Verlag, 2006, pp. 61–80.
     2. Reed, C., and Norman, T. J. A roadmap of research in argument and computation. In Argumentation Machines — New Frontiers in Argument and Computation, C. Reed and T. J. Norman, Eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/London, 2003, pp. 1–13.
2. Theory 1: Dialogues, Arguments and Other Useful Concepts
   • Slides
   • Recommended Reading
     1. Walton, D. The new dialectic: A method of evaluating used for some purpose in a given case. ProtoSociology 13 (1999), 70–91.
     2. Chapters 1-2 of Walton, D. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
3. Theory 2: Argumentation Schemes and Argument Evaluation
   • Slides
   • Recommended Reading
     1. Reed, C., and Walton, D. Applications of argument schemes. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the Ontario Study of Argumentation (OSSA2001) (Windsor, Ontario, Canada, 2001), H. V. Hanson, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, and R. H. Johnson, Eds.
     2. Chapter 3 of Walton, D. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
4. Theory 3: Dialogue Types and Argumentation Protocols
   • Slides
   • Recommended Reading
     1. Douglas Walton; Commitment, Types of Dialogue, and Fallacies, Informal Logic, Vol. 14, 1993. pp. 93-103
     2. Chapter 4 of Walton, D., “Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation”, Cambridge University Press, 2006
5. Models 1: Argument Structure and Evaluation
   • Slides
   • Recommended Reading
     1. Henry Prakken; Common Sense Reasoning, Course Reader, 2004
     2. Bench-Capon, T., and Dunne, P. E. Argumentation and dialogue in artificial intelligence, IJCAI 2005 tutorial notes, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, 2005.
     3. Chapters 26 and 27 of Sartor, G. Legal Reasoning: A Cognitive Approach to the Law. 2005.
6. Models 2: Carneades Argument Evaluation Structures
   • Slides
   • Recommended Reading
   1. Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., and Walton, D. The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof. Artificial Intelligence 171, 10-11 (2007), 875-896.
   2. Gordon, T.F. and Walton, D. Proof Burdens and Standards. In I. Rahwan and G. Simari, eds., Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2009, 239-260.
7. Models 3: Argument Construction
• Slides
• Recommended Reading
  1. Henry Prakken; AI and Law, Logic and Argumentation Schemes, Argumentation 19, Special Issue on the Toulmin Model Today (2005), pp. 303–320
  2. Bench-Capon, T., Freeman, J., Hohmann, H., and Prakken, H. Computational models, argumentation theories and legal practice. In Argumentation Machines; New Frontiers in Argument and Computation, C. Reed and T. J. Norman, Eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003, pp. pp. 85–120.
  3. Rissland, E. L., Ashley, K. D., and Loui, R. P. AI and law: A fruitful synergy.Artificial Intelligence 150, 1–2 (2003), pp. 1–15
8. Models 4: Dialogue Protocols
   • Slides
   • Recommended Reading
     1. Prakken, H. "Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21 (2006), 163–188.
     2. Loui, R. P. "Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning." Computational Intelligence 14 (1998), 1–38.
     3. McBurney, P., Parsons, S., and Wooldridge, M. "Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In AAMAS ’02: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (New York, NY, USA, 2002), ACM Press, pp. 402–409.
9. Tools: Argumentation Technology
   • Slides
   • Recommended Reading
     1. Conklin, J., and Begeman, M. gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 6, 4 (1988), 303–331.
     2. Reed, C., and Rowe, G. Araucaria: Software for puzzles in argument diagramming and XML. Technical report, Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee, 2001.
     3. Gordon, T. F., and Richter, G. Discourse support systems for deliberative democracy. In eGovernment: State of the Art and Perspectives (EGOV02) (Aix-en-Provence, 2002), R. Traunmüller and K. Lenk, Eds., Springer Verlag, pp. 248–255.
     4. Selvin, A., Shum, S. B., and Maarten Sierhuis, et al. Compendium: Making meetings into knowledge events. In Knowledge Technologies 2001 (Austin, Texas, March 2001)
10. Applications: Application Scenarios and Case Studies for Argumentation Technology
    • Slides
    • Recommended Reading
      1. Rosenschein, J. S., and Zlotkin, G. Consenting agents: Designing conventions for automated negotiation. AI Magazine Fall (1994), 29–46.
      2. Walton, D. N., and Lodder, A. R. What role can rationale argument play in ADR and online dispute resolution? In Second International ODR Workshop (Tilburg, 2005), IAAIL Workshop Series, Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 69–76.
      3. Gordon, T. F. Information technology for good governance. In French-German Symposium on Governance, Law and Technology (September 2005), D. Bourcier, Ed., University of Paris, pp. 87–95.
      4. Shum, S. B., and Hammond, N. Argumentation-based design rationale: What use and what cost? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 40, 4 (1994), 603–652.