Aikin, S., and Casey, J. (2011). Straw Men, Weak Men and Hollow Men. Argumentation, 25(1), 87–105.
Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case Based Argumentation through an Example and Models. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh.
Aristotle (1928). On Sophistical Refutations. Trans. Forster, E. S., Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Aristotle (1937). The Art of Rhetoric. Trans. Freese, John Henry, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Aristotle (1939). Topics. Trans. Forster, E. S., Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Ashley, K. (1988). Arguing by Analogy in Law: A Case-Based Model. In Analogical Reasoning, ed. Helman, D. H.. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 205–224.
Ashley, K. (2004). Capturing the Dialectic between Principles and Cases. Jurimetrics, 44, 229–279.
Ashley, K. (2006). Case-Based Reasoning. In Information Technology and Lawyers, ed. Lodder, A. R. and Oskamp, A.. Berlin: Springer, 23–60.
Ashley, K. (2009). Ontological Requirements for Analogical, Teleological and Hypothetical Reasoning. In Proceeding of ICAIL 2009: 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 1–10.
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., and McBurney, P. (2004). Justifying Practical Reasoning. In ed. Grasso, F., Reed, C and Carenini, G., Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004), Valencia, Spain, 87–90.
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., and McBurney, P. (2005). Arguing about Cases as Practical Reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ed. Sartor, G.. New York: ACM Press, 35–44.
Ballnat, S., and Gordon, T. F. (2010). Goal Selection in Argumentation Processes. In Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, ed. Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M. and Simari, G. R.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 51–62.
Barbaresi, L. M. (1987). Obviously and Certainly: Two Different Functions in Argumentative Discourse. Folia Linguistica, 21, 3–24.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (2003). Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 429–448.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (2009). Dimension Based Representation of Popov v. Hayashi. In Modelling Legal Cases, ed. Atkinson, K.. Barcelona: Huygens Editorial, 41–52.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (2012). Representing Popov v. Hayashi with Dimensions and Factors. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20, 67–76.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., and Dunne, P. E. (2007). Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 619–641.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., and Prakken, H. (2010). Using Argument Schemes for Hypothetical Reasoning in Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18(2), 153–174.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Lowes, D., and McEnery, A. M. (1991). Argument-Based Explanation Logic Programs. Knowledge-Based Systems, 4(3), 177–183.
Bex, F. (2009a). Analysing Stories Using Schemes. In Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic, ed. Kaptein, H., Prakken, H. and Verheij, B.. Farnham: Ashgate, 93–116.
Bex, F. (2009b). Evidence for a Good Story: A Hybrid Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen.
Bex, F. (2011). Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence: A Formal Hybrid Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bex, F., and Prakken, H. (2010). Investigating Stories in a Formal Dialogue Game. In Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, ed. Besnard, P., Doutre, S. and Hunter, A.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 73–84.
Bex, F., and Walton, D. (2010). Burdens and Standards of Proof for Inference to the Best Explanation. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: Proceedings of JURIX 2010, Amsterdam:IOS Press, 37–46.
Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., and Walton, D. (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalizations. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 125–165.
Bex, F., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., and Atkinson, K. (2009). ‘Did He Jump or Was He Pushed?’: Abductive Practical Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 17, 79–99.
Black, E., and Hunter, A. (2007). A Generative Inquiry Dialogue System. In Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, ed. Huhns, M. and Shehory, O., 1010–1017.
Black, E., and Hunter, A. (2008). Using Enthymemes in an Inquiry Dialogue System. In 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2008), ed. Padgham, L. et al. Estoril, Portugal, May 12–16. Vol. 1, pp. 437–444.
Blair, J. A., and Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as Dialectical. Argumentation, 1, 41–56.
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P. M., Kowalski, R. A., and Toni, F. (1997). An Abstract Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93, 63–101.
Bratman, M. (1987). Intention, Plans and Practical Reason. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Brewer, S. (1996). Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy. Harvard Law Review, 925, 923–1038.
Burke, M. (1985). Unstated Premises. Informal Logic, 7, 107–118.
Burnyeat, M. F. (1994). Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion. In Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays, ed. Furley, D. J. and Nehemas, A.. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 3–55.
Caminada, M.W.A. (2008). A Formal Account of Socratic-style Argumentation. Journal of Applied Logic, 6(1), 109–132.
Carey, S. (2000). The Uses and Abuses of Argument. Mountain View: California, Mayfield.
Clark, K. L. (1978). Negation as Failure. In Logic and Data Bases, ed. Gallaire, H. and Minker, J.. New York: Plenum Press, 293–322.
Cooke, E. (2006). Peirce’s Pragmatic Theory of Inquiry: Fallibilism and Indeterminacy. London: Continuum.
Copi, I. M. (1986). Introduction to Logic, 7th ed. New York: Macmillan.
Copi, I.M., and Cohen, C. (1994). Introduction to Logic, 9th ed. New York: Macmillan.
Copi, I. M., and Cohen, C. (1998). Introduction to Logic, 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Costantini, S., and Lazarone, A., (1995). Explanation-Based Interpretation of Open-Textured Concepts in Logical Models of Legislation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3, 191–208.
Dung, P. M. (1995). On the Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-person Games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357.
Ennis, R. H. (1982). Identifying Implicit Assumptions. Synthese, 51, 61–86.
Fleming, J. (1961). Burdens of Proof. Virginia Law Review, 47, 51–70.
Freeman, J. B. (1988). Thinking Logically. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Freeman, J. B. (1991). Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Freeman, J. B. (1995). The Appeal to Popularity and Presumption by Common Knowledge. In Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. Hansen, H. V. and Pinto, R. C.. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 263–273.
Freeman, J. B. (2005). Acceptable Premises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., and the ABC Research Group (1999). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Golden, H. L. (1994). Knowledge, Intent, System and Motive: A Much Needed Return to the Requirement of Independent Relevance. Lousiana Law Review, 55, 179–216.
Goodwin, J. (2010). How to Refute an Argument. Available at: , accessed November 26, 2010.
Gordon, T. F. (1995). The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gordon, T. F. (2005). A Computational Model of Argument for Legal Reasoning Support Systems. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, IAAIL Workshop Series, ed. P. E. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon. Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers, 53–64.
Gordon, T. F. (2007). Visualizing Carneades Argument Graphs. Law, Probability and Risk, 6, 109–117.
Gordon, T. F. (2010). An Overview of the Carneades Argumentation Support System. In Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation, ed. Reed, C. and Tindale, C. W.. London: College Publications, 145–156.
Gordon, T. F., and Walton, D. (2006a). 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.
Gordon, T. F., and Walton, D. (2006b). Pierson v. Post Revisited. In Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, ed. Dunne, P. E. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 208–219.
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.
Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., and Walton, D. (2007). The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 875–896.
Gough, J., and Tindale, C. (1985). Hidden or Missing Premises. Informal Logic, 7, 99–106.
Govier, T. (1992). A Practical Study of Argument, 3rd ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.
Govier, T. (1999). The Philosophy of Argument. Newport News, Va.: Vale Press.
Govier, T. (2006). The Philosophy of Argument. Newport News, Va.:Vale Press.
Gray, B. E. (2002). Reported and Recommendations on the Law of Capture and First Possession: Popov v. Hayashi. Superior of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco, Case no. 400545, November 6, 2002. Available at: , accessed May 24, 2009.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In The Logic of Grammar, ed. Davidson, D. and Harman, G.. Encino, Calif.: Dickenson, 64–75.
Guarini, M. (2004). A Defense of Non-deductive Reconstructions of Analogical Arguments. Informal Logic, 24, 153–168.
Guarini, M., Butchart, A., Simard Smith, P., and Moldovan, A. (2009). Resources for Research on Analogy: A Multi-disciplinary Guide. Informal Logic, 29(2), 84–197.
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Hamblin, C. L. (1971). Mathematical Models of Dialogue. Theoria, 37, 130–155.
Hamilton, W. (1861). Discussions on Philosophy and Literature. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Hamilton, W. (1874). Lectures on Logic. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons.
Hansen, H. V., and Pinto, R. C. (eds.) (1995). Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 251–264.
Hansen, H. V., and Walton, D. (2013). Argument Kinds and Argument Roles in the Ontario Provincial Election, Journal of Argumentation in Context, to appear.
Hart, H.L.A. (1949). The Ascription of Responsibility and Rights. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 49, 171–194. Reprinted in Logic and Language, ed. A. Flew (Oxford: Blackwell, 1951), 145–166.
Hart, H.L.A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hitchcock, D. (1985). Enthymematic Arguments. Informal Logic, 7, 83–97.
Hitchcock, D., and Verheij, B. (eds.) (2006). Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hurley, P. (2003). A Concise Introduction to Logic, 8th ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.
Irwin, T. (1988). Aristotle’s First Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jackson, S., and Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–165.
Jacovino, N. (1998). Red-Blooded Doctors Cure Anemia. Harvard University Gazette, January 22. Available at: , accessed February 3, 2009.
Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Johnson, R., and Blair, A. (1983). Logical Self-Defence, 2nd ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Joseph, H.W.B. (1916). An Introduction to Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Josephson, J. R., and Josephson, S. G. (1994). Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Krabbe, E.C.W. (1995). Appeal to Ignorance. In Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. Hansen, H. V. and Pinto, R. C.. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 251–264.
Krabbe, E.C.W. (1999). Profiles of Dialogue. In JFAK: Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of his 50th Birthday, ed. Gerbrandy, J., Marx, M., de Rijke, M. and Venema, Y.. Amsterdam:University of Amsterdam Press, 25–36.
Krabbe, E.C.W. (2001). The Problem of Retraction in Critical Discussion. Synthese, 127, 141–159.
Krabbe, E.C.W. (2007). Nothing but Objections! In Reason Reclaimed, ed. Hansen, H. V. and Pinto, R. C.. Newport News, Va.: Vale Press, 51–63.
Krabbe, E.C.W. (2009). Review of Tindale (2007). Argumentation, 23, 127–131.
Kripke, S. (1965). Semantical Analysis of Intuitionistic Logic I. In Formal Systems and Recursive Functions, ed. Crossley, J. N. and Dummet, Michael. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Leake, D. B. (1992). Evaluating Explanations: A Content Theory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Leonard, D. P. (2001). Character and Motive in Evidence Law. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 34, 439–536.
Lewinski, M. (2008). The Paradox of Charity. Informal Logic, 32(4), 403–439.
Lewinski, M. (2011). Towards a Critique-friendly Approach to the Straw Man Fallacy Evaluation. Argumentation, 25(4), 469–497.
Loui, R. P. (1995). Hart’s Critics on Defeasible Concepts and Ascriptivism. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York:ACM Press, 21–30. Available at: .
Macagno, F., and Walton, D. (2009). Argument from Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 42, 154–182.
Mackenzie, J. D. (1981). The Dialectics of Logic. Logique et Analyse, 94, 159–177.
Mackenzie, J. D. (1990). Four Dialogue Systems. Studia Logica, 49, 567–583.
Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, Reason and Science. New York: Kluwer.
McBurney, J. H. (1936). The Place of the Enthymeme in Rhetorical Theory. Speech Monographs, 3, 49–74.
McBurney, P., and Parsons, S. (2001a). Chance Discovery Using Dialectical Argumentation. In New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, ed. Terano, T., Nishida, T., Namatame, A., Tsumoto, S., Ohsawa, Y. and Washio, T. (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2253). Berlin: Springer Verlag, 414–424.
McBurney, P., and Parsons, S. (2001b). Representing Epistemic Uncertainty by Means of Dialectical Argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 32, 125–169.
McBurney, P., and Parsons, S. (2002). Games That Agents Play: A Formal Framework for Dialogues between Autonomous Agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 11, 315–334.
McCarthy, J. (1986). Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge. Artificial Intelligence, 28, 89–116.
McCarthy, K. M. (2002). Statement of Decision. Superior Court of California, December 12, 2002, Case of Popov v. Hayashi #4005545: .
McCarty, L. T., and Sridharan, N. S. (1982). A Computational Theory of Legal Argument. LRP-TR-13. Laboratory for Computer Science Research. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University, 1–36.
McLaren, B. M. (2003). Extensionally Defining Principles and Cases in Ethics: An AI Model. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 150, 145–181.
McLaren, B. M. (2006). Computational Models of Ethical Reasoning: Challenges, Initial Steps, and Future Directions. In IEEE Intelligent Systems. Published by the IEEE Computer Society, July/August, 29–37.
Minot, G. R., and Murphy, W. P. (2001). Treatment of Pernicious Anemia by a Special Diet. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 74, 341–353. Reprinted from the Journal of the American Medical Association, 87, 1926, 470–476.
Minsky, M. (1975). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. In The Psychology of Computer Vision, ed. Winston, P.. McGraw-Hill. Available at: .
Misak, C. (1991). Truth and the End of Inquiry: A Peircean Account of Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mochales, R., and Leven, A. (2009). Creating an Argument Corpus: Do Theories Apply to Real Arguments? In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 21–30.
Mochales Palau, R., and Moens, M.-F. (2007). Study on Sentence Relations in the Automatic Detection of Argumentation in Legal Cases. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007, The Twentieth International Conference, ed. Lodder, A. and Mommers, L.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 89–98.
Mochales Palau, R., and Moens, M.-F. (2008). Study on the Structure of Argumentation in Case Law. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008, The Twenty-First International Conference, ed. E. Francesconi, G. Sartor and Tiscornia, D.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 11–20, 89–98.
Mochales Palau, R., and Moens, M.-F. (2009). Argumentation Mining: The Detection, Classification and Structure of Arguments in Text. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 98–107.
Moens, M.-F., Mochales Palau, R., Boiy, E., and Reed, C. (2007). Automatic Detection of Arguments in Legal Texts. In Proceedings of the International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 2007), Stanford, Calif., 225–230.
Paglieri, F., and Woods, J. (2011). Enthymematic Parsimony. Synthese, 178, 461–501.
Pardo, M. S., and Allen, R. J. (2007). Juridical Proof and the Best Explanation. Law and Philosophy 27, 223–268.
Park, R. C., Leonard, D. P., and Goldberg, S. H. (1998). Evidence Law. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group.
Patry, W. (2005/6). The Patry Copyright Blog. Available at: , accessed July 22, 2010.
Peirce, C. S. (1931). Collected Chapters. Ed. Hartshorne, C. and Weiss, P.. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1984). Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, vol. 2. Ed. Moore, E. C.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1986). Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, vol. 3. Ed. Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
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.
Perelman, C., and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.
Pollock, J. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge: London.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Prakken, H. (2000). On Dialogue Systems with Speech Acts, Arguments and Counterarguments. In Proceedings of JELIA 2000, the European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence, ed. Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzman, I. P., Brewka, G. and Pereira, L. M.. Berlin: Springer, 224–238.
Prakken, H. (2003). Logical Dialectics: The Missing Link between Deductivism and Pragma-Dialectics. In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. van Eemeren, Frans H. et al. Amsterdam: SicSat, 857–860.
Prakken, H. (2005). Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15, 1009–1040.
Prakken, H. (2006). Formal Systems for Persuasion Dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review, 21, 163–188.
Prakken, H. (2010). On the Nature of Argument Scheme. In Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation, ed. Reed, C. and Tindale, C. W.. London: College Publications, 167–185.
Prakken, H., and Sartor, G. (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4, 331–368.
Prakken, H., and Sartor, G. (1997). Argument-based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7, 25–75.
Prakken, H., and Sartor, G. (2006a). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4, 331–368.
Prakken, H., and Sartor, G. (2006b). Presumptions and Burdens of Proof. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, ed. van Engers, T. M.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 21–30.
Prakken, H., and Sartor, G. (2007). Formalising Arguments about the Burden of Persuasion. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: ACM Press, 97–106.
Prakken, H., and Sartor, G. (2009). A Logical Analysis of Burdens of Proof. In Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic, ed. Kaptein, H., Prakken, H. and Verheij, B.. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 223–253.
Rahwan, I., Banihashemi, B., Reed, C., Walton, D., and Abdallah, S. (2011). Representing and Classifying Arguments on the Semantic Web. Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(4), 487–511.
Reed, C. (1998). Dialogue Frames in Agent Communication. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ed. Demazeau, Y.. IEEE Press, 246–253.
Reed, C. (2006). Representing Dialogic Argumentation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 19(1), 22–31.
Reed, C., and Grasso, F. (2007). Recent Advances in Computational Models of Natural Argument. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1), 1–15.
Reed, C., and Walton, D. (2003). Diagramming, Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions. In Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, ed. van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A. and Snoek Henkemans, A.. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 195–211.
Reed, C., and Tindale, C. W. (eds.) (2010). Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton’s Theories of Reasoning and Arguments. London: College Publications.
Reed, C., Walton, D., and Macagno, F. (2007). Argument Diagramming in Logic, Law and Artificial Intelligence. Knowledge Engineering Review, 22, 87–109.
Reiter, R. (1980). A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13, 81–132.
Reiter, R. (1987). Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Annual Review of Computer Science, 2, 147–186.
Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1977.
Restificar, A., Ali, S., and McRoy, S. (1999). ARGUER: Using Argument Schemas for Argument Detection and Rebuttal in Dialogs. In UMP99: International Conference on User Modeling, ed. Kay, Judy. New York: Springer-Wien, 315–317.
Ribeiro, B. (2008). How Often Do We (Philosophy Professors) Commit the Straw Man Fallacy?Teaching Philosophy, 31, 27–38.
Rissland, E., and Ashley, K. (1987). A Case-Based System for Trade Secrets Law. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Evidence and Law, Boston, 60–66.
Robinson, R. (1953). Plato’s Earlier Dialectic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Robinson, R. (1962). Plato’s Earlier Dialectic, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ross, W. D., ed. (1928). The Works of Aristotle Translated into English, vol. 1. Trans. W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Russell, S., and Norvig, P. (1995). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Salmon, W. (1963). Logic. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Sartor, G. (2005). Legal Reasoning: A Cognitive Approach to the Law. Springer: Berlin.
Schank, R. C. (1986). Explanation Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and Creatively. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Schank, R. C., and Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Schauer, F. (1987). Precedent. Stanford Law Review, 39(3), 571–605.
Schauer, F. (2009). Thinking like a Lawyer. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., and McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-Supported Argumentation: A Review of the State of the Art. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102.
Scriven, M. (1976). Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Searle, J. (2001). Rationality in Action. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Sergot, M., Sadri, A., Kowalski, R., Kriwaczek, F., Hammond, P., and Cory, H. T. (1986). The British Nationality Act as a Logic Program. In Proceedings ZNP-83 Congress, ed. Van Nevel, G. and Balfroid, F.. New York:Elsevier North-Holland, 29(5), 370–386.
Singh, M. P. (2000). A Social Semantics for Agent Communication Languages. In Issues in Agent Communication, ed. Dignum, F. and Greaves, M.. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 31–45.
Singh, P., Lin, T., Mueller, E., Lim, G., Perkins, T., and Li Zhu, W. (2002). Open Mind Common Sense: Knowledge Acquisition from the General Public. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ontologies, Databases, and Applications of Semantics for Large Scale Information Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Heidelberg: Springer, 1123-1237.
Tamminga, A. (2001). Belief Dynamics. Ph.D. thesis. Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.
Thomson, J. (1971). A Defense of Abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1), 47–66.
Tillers, P., and Gottfried, J. (2006). Case comment – United States v. Copeland, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005): A Collateral Attack on the Legal Maxim That Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Is Unquantifiable?Law, Probability and Risk, 5, 135–157.
Tindale, C. W. (1997). Fallacies, Blunders and Dialogue Shifts: Walton’s Contributions to the Fallacy Debate. Argumentation, 11, 341–354.
Tindale, C. W. (1999). Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Tindale, C. (2007). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Communicative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.
Van Eemeren, F. H., and Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation, 1, 283–301.
Van Eemeren, F. H., and Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Van Eemeren, F. H., and Houtlosser, P. (2006). Strategic Maneuvering: A Synthetic Recapitulation. Argumentation, 20, 381–392.
Van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., and Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2007). Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. Dordrecht: Springer.
Verheij, B. (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 167–195.
Verheij, B. (2005). Virtual Arguments. On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.
Verheij, B. (2009). The Toulmin Argument Model in Artificial Intelligence. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, ed. Rahwan, I. and Simari, G.. Berlin: Springer, 219–238.
Vreeswijk, G., and Prakken, H. (2000). Credulous and Sceptical Argument Games for Preferred Semantics. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, Springer Lecture Notes in AI 1919, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 239–253.
Wagenaar, W. A., van Koppen, P. J., and Crombag, H.F.M. (1993). Anchored Narratives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Walton, D. (1984). Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.
Walton, D. (1990). Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven, Knowledge-Based, Action-Guiding Argumentation. Savage, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Walton, D. (1992). Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walton, D. (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1995.
Walton, D. (1996a). Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
Walton, D. (1996b). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Walton, D. (1996c). Arguments from Ignorance. University Park: Penn State University Press.
Walton, D. (1996d). The Straw Man Fallacy. In Logic and Argumentation, ed. van Benthem, J., van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. and Veltman, F.. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 115–128.
Walton, D. (1997). Appeal to Expert Opinion, University Park: Penn State University Press.
Walton, D. (1998). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Walton, D. (1999a). Profiles of Dialogue for Arguments from Ignorance. Argumentation, 13, 53–71.
Walton, D. (1999b). Rethinking the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. Argumentation, 13, 161–182.
Walton, D. (2001). Enthymemes, Common Knowledge and Plausible Inference. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 34, 93–112.
Walton, D. (2002). The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument from Waste. Argumentation, 16, 473–503.
Walton, D. (2003). Is There a Burden of Questioning?Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 1–43.
Walton, D. (2006a). Argument from Appearance: A New Argumentation Scheme. Logique et Analyse, 195, 2006, 319–340.
Walton, D. (2006b). Character Evidence: An Abductive Theory. Berlin: Springer.
Walton, D. (2006c). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (2006d). Poisoning the Well. Argumentation, 20, 273–307.
Walton, D. (2007a). Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Walton, D. (2007b). Metadialogues for Resolving Burden of Proof Disputes. Argumentation, 21, 291–316.
Walton, D. (2008a). Informal Logic, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Walton, D. (2008b). Proleptic Argumentation. Argumentation & Advocacy, 44, 143–154.
Walton, D. (2008c). The Three Bases for the Enthymeme: A Dialogical Theory. Journal of Applied Logic, 6, 361–379.
Walton, D. (2008d). Witness Testimony Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (2010a). A Dialogue Model of Belief. Argument and Computation, 1, 23–46.
Walton, D. (2010b). Why Fallacies Appear to Be Better Arguments Than They Are. Informal Logic, 30(2), 159–184.
Walton, D. (2011a). A Dialogue System Specification for Explanation. Synthese, 182(3), 349–374.
Walton, D. (2011b). Reasoning about Knowledge Using Defeasible Logic. Argument and Computation, 2(2–3), 131–155.
Walton, D. (2012). Using Argumentation Schemes for Argument Extraction: A Bottom-Up Method. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Cognitive Computing, 6(3), 33–60.
Walton, D., and Godden, D. M. (2005). The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes. In The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, ed. Hitchcock, D.. Hamilton, Ontario: OSSA, 476–484.
Walton, D., and Gordon, T. F. (2005). Critical Questions in Computational Models of Legal Argument. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, IAAIL Workshop Series, ed. Dunne, P. E. and Bench-Capon, T.J.M.. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 103–111.
Walton, D., and Gordon, T. F. (2009). Jumping to a Conclusion: Fallacies and Standards of Proof. Informal Logic, 29, 215–243.
Walton, D., and Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Walton, D., and Macagno, F. (2010). Wrenching from Context: The Manipulation of Commitments. Argumentation 24(3), 283–317.
Walton, D., and Macagno, F. (2011). Quotations and Presumptions: Dialogical Effects of Misquotations. Informal Logic, 31(1), 26–54.
Walton, D., and Reed, C. (2005). Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes. Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 145, 339–370.
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.
Walton, D., Reed, C., and Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weinreb, L. L. (2005). Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wigmore, J. H. (1931). The Principles of Judicial Proof, 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown.
Wigmore, J. H. (1940). Evidence in Trials at Common Law. Boston: Little, Brown.
Williams, A. R. (2003). Burdens and Standards in Civil Litigation. Sydney Law Review, 25, 165–188.
Williams, G. (1977). The Evidential Burden: Some Common Misapprehensions. New Law Journal, Feb. 17, 156–158.
Wooldridge, M. (2000). Reasoning about Rational Agents. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Wooldridge, M., and Jennings, N. R. (1995). Intelligent Agents: Theory and Practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10, 115–152.
Wyner, A., and Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (2007). Argument Schemes for Legal Case-Based Reasoning. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007, The Twentieth International Conference, ed. Lodder, A. and Mommers, L.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 139–149.
Wyner, A., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., and Atkinson, K. (2007). Arguments, Values and Baseballs: Representation of Popov v. Hayashi. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2007), ed. Lodder, A. and Mommers, L.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 151–160.
