Aikin, S., and Casey, J. (2011). Straw Men, Weak Men and Hollow Men. Argumentation, 25(1), 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case Based Argumentation through an Example and Models. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar

Aristotle (1928). On Sophistical Refutations. Trans. Forster, E. S., Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Aristotle (1937). The Art of Rhetoric. Trans. Freese, John Henry, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

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

Ashley, K. (1988). Arguing by Analogy in Law: A Case-Based Model. In Analogical Reasoning, ed. Helman, D. H.. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 205–224.Google Scholar

Ashley, K. (2004). Capturing the Dialectic between Principles and Cases. Jurimetrics, 44, 229–279.Google Scholar

Ashley, K. (2006). Case-Based Reasoning. In Information Technology and Lawyers, ed. Lodder, A. R. and Oskamp, A.. Berlin: Springer, 23–60.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Barbaresi, L. M. (1987). Obviously and Certainly: Two Different Functions in Argumentative Discourse. Folia Linguistica, 21, 3–24.Google Scholar

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

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.Google Scholar

Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (2012). Representing Popov v. Hayashi with Dimensions and Factors. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20, 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bench-Capon, T.J.M., and Dunne, P. E. (2007). Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 619–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Lowes, D., and McEnery, A. M. (1991). Argument-Based Explanation Logic Programs. Knowledge-Based Systems, 4(3), 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Bex, F. (2009b). Evidence for a Good Story: A Hybrid Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen.Google Scholar

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

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.CrossRef

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.Google Scholar

Blair, J. A., and Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as Dialectical. Argumentation, 1, 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Brewer, S. (1996). Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy. Harvard Law Review, 925, 923–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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.Google Scholar

Caminada, M.W.A. (2008). A Formal Account of Socratic-style Argumentation. Journal of Applied Logic, 6(1), 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carey, S. (2000). The Uses and Abuses of Argument. Mountain View: California, Mayfield.Google Scholar

Clark, K. L. (1978). Negation as Failure. In Logic and Data Bases, ed. Gallaire, H. and Minker, J.. New York: Plenum Press, 293–322.Google Scholar

Cooke, E. (2006). Peirce’s Pragmatic Theory of Inquiry: Fallibilism and Indeterminacy. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Copi, I. M. (1986). Introduction to Logic, 7th ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copi, I.M., and Cohen, C. (1994). Introduction to Logic, 9th ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copi, I. M., and Cohen, C. (1998). Introduction to Logic, 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Fleming, J. (1961). Burdens of Proof. Virginia Law Review, 47, 51–70.Google Scholar

Freeman, J. B. (1988). Thinking Logically. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Freeman, J. B. (1991). Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Freeman, J. B. (2005). Acceptable Premises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., and the ABC Research Group (1999). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Gordon, T. F. (2007). Visualizing Carneades Argument Graphs. Law, Probability and Risk, 6, 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.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

Govier, T. (1992). A Practical Study of Argument, 3rd ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Govier, T. (1999). The Philosophy of Argument. Newport News, Va.: Vale Press.Google Scholar

Govier, T. (2006). The Philosophy of Argument. Newport News, Va.:Vale Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Guarini, M. (2004). A Defense of Non-deductive Reconstructions of Analogical Arguments. Informal Logic, 24, 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Hamilton, W. (1861). Discussions on Philosophy and Literature. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar

Hamilton, W. (1874). Lectures on Logic. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons.Google Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hart, H.L.A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford:Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Hitchcock, D., and Verheij, B. (eds.) (2006). Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef

Hurley, P. (2003). A Concise Introduction to Logic, 8th ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Irwin, T. (1988). Aristotle’s First Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Jackson, S., and Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Johnson, R., and Blair, A. (1983). Logical Self-Defence, 2nd ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar

Joseph, H.W.B. (1916). An Introduction to Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

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

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Krabbe, E.C.W. (2001). The Problem of Retraction in Critical Discussion. Synthese, 127, 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Krabbe, E.C.W. (2009). Review of Tindale (2007). Argumentation, 23, 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Leake, D. B. (1992). Evaluating Explanations: A Content Theory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

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

Lewinski, M. (2008). The Paradox of Charity. Informal Logic, 32(4), 403–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewinski, M. (2011). Towards a Critique-friendly Approach to the Straw Man Fallacy Evaluation. Argumentation, 25(4), 469–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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: .Google Scholar

Macagno, F., and Walton, D. (2009). Argument from Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 42, 154–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mackenzie, J. D. (1981). The Dialectics of Logic. Logique et Analyse, 94, 159–177.Google Scholar

Mackenzie, J. D. (1990). Four Dialogue Systems. Studia Logica, 49, 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, Reason and Science. New York: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McBurney, J. H. (1936). The Place of the Enthymeme in Rhetorical Theory. Speech Monographs, 3, 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

McBurney, P., and Parsons, S. (2001b). Representing Epistemic Uncertainty by Means of Dialectical Argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 32, 125–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, J. (1986). Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge. Artificial Intelligence, 28, 89–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.CrossRef

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.Google ScholarPubMed

Minsky, M. (1975). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. In The Psychology of Computer Vision, ed. Winston, P.. McGraw-Hill. Available at: .Google Scholar

Misak, C. (1991). Truth and the End of Inquiry: A Peircean Account of Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Paglieri, F., and Woods, J. (2011). Enthymematic Parsimony. Synthese, 178, 461–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pardo, M. S., and Allen, R. J. (2007). Juridical Proof and the Best Explanation. Law and Philosophy 27, 223–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Park, R. C., Leonard, D. P., and Goldberg, S. H. (1998). Evidence Law. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1984). Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, vol. 2. Ed. Moore, E. C.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1986). Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, vol. 3. Ed. Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington and Indianapolis: 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

Perelman, C., and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Pollock, J. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Popper, K. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Prakken, H. (2005). Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15, 1009–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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.Google Scholar

Prakken, H., and Sartor, G. (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4, 331–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, H., and Sartor, G. (1997). Argument-based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7, 25–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, H., and Sartor, G. (2006a). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4, 331–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Reed, C. (2006). Representing Dialogic Argumentation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 19(1), 22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reed, C., and Grasso, F. (2007). Recent Advances in Computational Models of Natural Argument. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Reiter, R. (1987). Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Annual Review of Computer Science, 2, 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1977.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Ribeiro, B. (2008). How Often Do We (Philosophy Professors) Commit the Straw Man Fallacy?Teaching Philosophy, 31, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Robinson, R. (1953). Plato’s Earlier Dialectic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Robinson, R. (1962). Plato’s Earlier Dialectic, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Ross, W. D., ed. (1928). The Works of Aristotle Translated into English, vol. 1. Trans. W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Salmon, W. (1963). Logic. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: 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, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

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

Schauer, F. (1987). Precedent. Stanford Law Review, 39(3), 571–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schauer, F. (2009). Thinking like a Lawyer. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Tamminga, A. (2001). Belief Dynamics. Ph.D. thesis. Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Thomson, J. (1971). A Defense of Abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1), 47–66.Google Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tindale, C. W. (1997). Fallacies, Blunders and Dialogue Shifts: Walton’s Contributions to the Fallacy Debate. Argumentation, 11, 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tindale, C. W. (1999). Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Tindale, C. (2007). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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. (1987). Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation, 1, 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Eemeren, F. H., and Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Van Eemeren, F. H., and Houtlosser, P. (2006). Strategic Maneuvering: A Synthetic Recapitulation. Argumentation, 20, 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., and Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2007). Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Verheij, B. (2003). 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. (2009). The Toulmin Argument Model in Artificial Intelligence. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, ed. Rahwan, I. and Simari, G.. Berlin: Springer, 219–238.Google Scholar

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.Google 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

Walton, D. (1984). Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.Google Scholar

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

Walton, D. (1992). Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Walton, D. (1996a). Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. Toronto:University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

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

Walton, D. (1996c). Arguments from Ignorance. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (1997). Appeal to Expert Opinion, University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar

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

Walton, D. (1999a). Profiles of Dialogue for Arguments from Ignorance. Argumentation, 13, 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (1999b). Rethinking the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. Argumentation, 13, 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (2001). Enthymemes, Common Knowledge and Plausible Inference. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 34, 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (2002). The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument from Waste. Argumentation, 16, 473–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (2003). Is There a Burden of Questioning?Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (2006a). Argument from Appearance: A New Argumentation Scheme. Logique et Analyse, 195, 2006, 319–340.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (2006b). Character Evidence: An Abductive Theory. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

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

Walton, D. (2006d). Poisoning the Well. Argumentation, 20, 273–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (2007a). Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (2007b). Metadialogues for Resolving Burden of Proof Disputes. Argumentation, 21, 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (2008a). Informal Logic, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (2008b). Proleptic Argumentation. Argumentation & Advocacy, 44, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Walton, D. (2008d). Witness Testimony Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (2010a). A Dialogue Model of Belief. Argument and Computation, 1, 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (2010b). Why Fallacies Appear to Be Better Arguments Than They Are. Informal Logic, 30(2), 159–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Walton, D., and Gordon, T. F. (2009). Jumping to a Conclusion: Fallacies and Standards of Proof. Informal Logic, 29, 215–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Walton, D., and Macagno, F. (2010). Wrenching from Context: The Manipulation of Commitments. Argumentation 24(3), 283–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D., and Macagno, F. (2011). Quotations and Presumptions: Dialogical Effects of Misquotations. Informal Logic, 31(1), 26–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D., and Reed, C. (2005). Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes. Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 145, 339–370.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., Reed, C., and Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weinreb, L. L. (2005). Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wigmore, J. H. (1931). The Principles of Judicial Proof, 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar

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

Williams, A. R. (2003). Burdens and Standards in Civil Litigation. Sydney Law Review, 25, 165–188.Google Scholar

Williams, G. (1977). The Evidential Burden: Some Common Misapprehensions. New Law Journal, Feb. 17, 156–158.Google Scholar

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

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

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar