Abelard, Petrus (1970). Dialectica. In Rijk, Lambertus Marie (Ed.), Petrus Abelardus: Dialectica. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar

Rodolphus, Agricola (1976). De inventione dialectica libri tres. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar

Alberts, Laurie (2001). Causation in toxic tort litigation. Villanova Environmental Law Journal 12: 33–63.Google Scholar

Amgoud, Leila, and Cayrol, Claudette (2002). A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34: 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Terence, Schum, David, and Twining, William (2005). Analysis of Evidence, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

, Aristotle (1851). On Rhetoric. Translated by T. Buckley. London: Henry G. Bohn.Google Scholar

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

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

, Aristotle (1964). Prior and Posterior Analitics. Translated by John Warrington. New York: Everyman.Google Scholar

, Aristotle (1984). Prior analytics. Translated by Jonathan Barnes. In Barnes, Jonathan (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle, vol. I. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Arnaud, Antoine, and Nicole, Pierre (1964). The Art of Thinking. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merril.Google Scholar

Ashley, Kevin D., and Rissland, Edwina L. (2003). Law, learning and representation. Artificial Intelligence 150: 17–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atkinson, Katie, Bench-Capon, Trevor, and McBurney, Peter (2006). PARMENIDES: Facilitating deliberation in democracies. Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (4): 261–275.Google Scholar

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

Barker, Evelyn (1989). Beardsley's theory of analogy. Informal Logic 11 (3): 185–194.Google Scholar

Beardsley, Monroe (1950). Practical Logic. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Beardsley, Monroe (1956). Thinking Straight. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Bench-Capon, Trevor (1998). Specifying the interaction between information sources. Proceedings of DEXA, Vienna, Austria, August 24–8. Berlin: Springer, 425–434.CrossRef

Bench-Capon, Trevor (2003a). Persuasion in practical argument using value-bas ed argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13: 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bench-Capon, Trevor (2003b). Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties without a consensus about values. Informal Logic 22: 231–245.Google Scholar

Bench-Capon, Trevor, and Prakken, Henry (2005). Argumentation. In Lodder, Arno and Oskamp, Anja (eds.), Information Technology and Lawyers: Advanced Technology in the Legal Domain, from Challenges to Daily Routine. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 61–80.Google Scholar

Bench-Capon, Trevor, and Sartor, Giovanni (2003). A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence 97: 97–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Best, Joel (2001). Damned Lies and Statistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Bex, Floris, Prakken, Henry, Reed, Chris, and Walton, Douglas (2003). Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalizations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 125–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boh, Ivan (1984). Epistemic and alethic iteration in later medieval logic. Philosophia Naturalis 21: 492–506.Google Scholar

Boller, Paul F. (1967). Quotemanship. The Use and Abuse of Quotations for Polemical and Other Purposes. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press.Google Scholar

Braet, Antoine C. (2004). The oldest typology of argumentation schemes. Argumentation 18: 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Brewer, Scott (1996). Exemplary reasoning: Semantics, pragmatics, and the rational force of legal argument by analogy. Harvard Law Review 109: 923–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, William (1989). Two traditions of analogy. Informal Logic 11 (3): 161–172.Google Scholar

Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Mapping dialogue and argumentation in international development: The case of Compendium and OpenLearn LabSpace. Workshop on User Centered Design and International Development, ACM Computer-Human Interaction Conference, April 28, 2007, San Jose. <http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~mikeb/UCDandIDWorkshop/papers/shum.pdf.>

Burbridge, John (1990). Within Reason: A Guide to Non Deductive Reasoning. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press.Google Scholar

Burke, Michael (1985). Unstated premises. Informal Logic 7: 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burnyeat, Myles F. (1994). Enthymeme: Aristotle on the logic of persuasion. In Furley, David J. and Nehemas, Alexander (eds.), Aristotle's Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 3–55.Google Scholar

Carberry, Sandra (1990). Plan Recognition in Natural Language Dialogue. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Carbogim, Daniela V., Robertson, David S. and Lee, John R. (2000). Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. The Knowledge Engineering Review 15 (2): 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chesnevar, Carlos, McGinnis, Jarred, Modgil, Sanjay, Rahwan, Iyad, Reed, Chris, Simari, Guillermo, South, Matthew, Vreeswijk, Gerard, and Willmott, Steven (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. Knowledge Engineering Review 21 (4): 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chorley, Alison, and Bench-Capon, Trevor (2004). AGATHA: Automation of the construction of theories in case law domains. In Gordon, Tom (ed.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2004: The Seventeenth Annual Conference. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 89–98.Google Scholar

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1949). De Inventione, De optimo genere oraturum, Topica. Translated by H. Hubbell. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1965). Rhetorica ad Herennium. Translated by Caplan, Harry. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, Keith (1978). Negation as failure. In Gallaire, Hervé and Minker, Jack (eds.), Logic and Data Bases. New York: Plenum Press, 293–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clarke, David S. (1985). Practical Inferences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cohen, Philip R., and Levesque, Hector J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42: 213–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Console, Luca, and Torasso, Pietro (1990). Hypothetical reasoning in causal models. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 5: 83–124.Google Scholar

Copi, Irving (1986). Informal Logic. London: Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copi, Irving, and Burgess-Jackson, Keith (1992). Informal Logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copi, Irving, and Cohen, Carl (1998). Introduction to Logic. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Crenshaw, Kimberle (1998). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. Chicago Legal Forum: 139–167.

Pater, Wilhelmus (1965). Les Topiques d'Aristote et la Dialectique Platonicienne. Fribourg, Germany: Éditions de St. Paul.Google Scholar

Dijkstra, Pieter, Bex, Floris, Prakken, Henry, and Vey Mestdagh, Kees (2005). Towards a multi-agent system for regulated information exchange in crime investigations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13: 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doyle, Conan Arthur (1932). The Complete Sherlock Holmes. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.Google Scholar

Dung, Phan Minh (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

Eemeren, Frans H., and Grootendorst, Rob (1984). Speech Acts in Communicative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eemeren, Frans H., and Grootendorst, Rob (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Eemeren, Frans H., and Kruiger, Tjark (1987). Identifying argumentation schemes. In Eemeren, Frans, Grootendorst, Rob, Blair, Anthony, and Willard, Charles, (eds.), Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches. Dordrecht: Foris, 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engel, Morris S. (1980). Analyzing Informal Fallacies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Ennis, Robert H. (1982). Identifying implicit assumptions. Synthese 51: 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ennis, Robert H. (2001). Argument appraisal strategy: A comprehensive approach. Informal Logic 21 (2): 97–140.Google Scholar

Farrell, Thomas B. (2000). Aristotle's enthymeme as tacit reference. In Gross, Alan and Walzer, Arthur, (eds.), Rereading Aristotle's Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 93–106.Google Scholar

Fox, John, and Das, Subrata (2000). Safe and Sound: Artificial Intelligence in Hazardous Applications. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Freeman, James B. (1991). Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Argument. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freeman, James B. (1995). The appeal to popularity and presumption by common knowledge. In Hansen, Hans V. and Pinto, Robert C. (eds.), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 263–273.Google Scholar

Garssen, Bart (2001). Argumentation schemes. In Eemeren, Frans (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 81–99.Google Scholar

Gerritsen, Susanne (2001). Unexpressed premises. In Eemeren, Frans (Ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 51–79.Google Scholar

Gilbert, Michael (1991). The enthymeme buster. Informal Logic 13: 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gilbert, Michael A. (1997). Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Goldschmidt, Victor (1947). Le Paradigme dans la Dialectique Platonicienne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Gordon, Thomas F. (1995). The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gordon, Thomas F. (2005). A computational model of argument for legal reasoning support systems. In Dunne, Paul and Bench-Capon, Trevor (eds.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, IAAIL Workshop Series. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 53–64.Google Scholar

Gordon, Thomas F., and Walton, Douglas (2006). Pierson vs. Post revisted – a reconstruction using the Carneades Argumentation Framework. In Dunne, Paul and Bench-Capon, Trevor (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 06). Liverpool: IOS Press. 208–219.Google Scholar

Gough, James, and Tindale, Christopher (1985). Hidden or missing premises. Informal Logic 7: 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Govier, Trudy (1989). Analogies and missing premises. Informal Logic 11 (3): 141–152.Google Scholar

Govier, Trudy ([1992], 2005). A Practical Study of Argument. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Grasso, Floriana, Cawsey, Alison, and Jones, Ray (2000). Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: A case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53 (6): 1077–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green-Pedersen, Niels J. (1984). The Tradition of Topics in the Middle Age. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.

Grennan, Wayne (1997). Informal Logic. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar

Groarke, Leo (1999). Deductivism within pragma-dialectics. Argumentation 13: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Groarke, Leo (2001). Argumentation schemes in pedagogy and AI. In Hansen, Hans and Tindale, Christopher (eds.), Proceedings of the OSSA'2001 Conference on Argument and its Applications. Windsor, Ontario: Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar

Guarini, Marcello (2004). A defense of non-deductive reconstructions of analogical arguments. Informal Logic 24: 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hage, Jaap (2005). The logic of analogy in the law. Argumentation 19: 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Hart, H. L. A. (1957–58). Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. Harvard Law Review 71: 593–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hart, H. L. A., and Honoré, Tony (1962). Causation in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hastings, Arthur. C. (1963). “A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation.” Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.

Hintikka, Jaakko (1979). Information-seeking dialogues: A model. Erkenntnis 38: 355–368.Google Scholar

Hintikka, Jaakko (1992). The interrogative model of inquiry as a general theory of argumentation. Communication and Cognition 25: 221–242.Google Scholar

Hintikka, Jaakko (1993). Socratic questioning, logic and rhetoric. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 184: 5–30.Google Scholar

Hintikka, Jaakko (1995). The games of logic and the games of inquiry. Dialectica 49: 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hitchcock, David (1981). Deduction, induction, and conduction. Informal Logic Newsletter 3 (2): 7–15.Google Scholar

Hitchcock, David (1985). Enthymematic arguments. Informal Logic 7: 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hitchcock, David (2005). Good reasoning on the Toulmin model. Argumentation 19: 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huber, Peter W. (1991). Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Hurley, Patrick J. (2000). A Concise Introduction to Logic, 7th ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Jackson, Sally, and Jacobs, Scott (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66: 251–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, Ralph H. (2000). Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Johnson, Ralph, and Blair, Anthony ([1983], 1994). Logical Self Defence. Toronto: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

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

Jovicic, Taeda (2002). “Authority-based Argumentative Strategies.” Doctoral dissertation in the Department of Theoretical Philosophy, Uppsala University. Uppsala, Sweden.

Juthe, André (2005). Argument by analogy. Argumentation 19: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Katzav, Joel, and Reed, Chris (2004). On argumentation schemes and the natural classification of argument. Argumentation 18: 239–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Katzav, Joel, and Reed, Chris (2004a). A Classification system for argument. Department of Applied Computing Technical Report, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland.

Kienpointner, Manfred (1986). Towards a typology of argument schemes. In Eemeren, Frans H. et al. (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Dordrecht: Foris, 275–287.Google Scholar

Kienpointner, Manfred (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog.Google Scholar

Kienpointner, Manfred (1992a). How to classify arguments. In Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A. and Willard, C. A. (eds.), Argumentation Illuminated. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 178–188.Google Scholar

Kienpointner, Manfred (2002). Perelman on causal arguments: The argument from waste. In Eemeren, Frans. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Argumentation. Amsterdam: SicSat, 611–616.Google Scholar

Kirschner, Paul A., Shum, Buckingham, Simon, J., and Carr, Chad S. (eds.) (2003). Visualizing Argumentation. London: Springer-Verlag.CrossRef

Kneale, William, and Kneale, Martha (1962). The Development of Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Kozinski, Alex (2001). How I narrowly escaped insanity. U.C.L.A. Law Review 48: 1293–1304.Google Scholar

Krabbe, Erik (1992). So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuasion dialogues. Argumentation 6: 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krabbe, Erik C. W. (1999). Profiles of dialogue. In Gerbrandy, Jelle, Marx, Maarten, Rijke, Maarten, and Venema, Yde, (eds.), JFAK: Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of his 50th Birthday. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 25–36.Google Scholar

Kupperman, Joel (1991). Character. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lenat, Douglas (1995). CYC: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Communications of the ACM 38 (11): 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lloyd, Geoffrey E. R. (1966). Polarity and Analogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mackenzie, James D. (1979). Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mackenzie, James D. (1990). Four dialogue systems. Studia Logica 49: 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mackie, John L. (1965). Causes and conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly 2: 245–264.Google Scholar

Mann, William, and Thompson, Sandra (1987). Rhetorical structure theory. Text 8: 243–281.Google Scholar

Maruyama, Magoroh (1968). The second cybernetics: Deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes. In Buckley, Walter (ed.), Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist. Chicago: Aldine, 304–313.Google Scholar

Mathews, Nieves (1996). Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

McBurney, James (1936). Some recent interpretations of the Aristotelian enthymeme. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 21: 489–500.Google Scholar

McBurney, Peter, and Parsons, Simon (2002). Games that agents play. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11 (3): 315–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mitchell, Melanie (2001). Analogy-making as a complex adaptive system. In Segel, Lee and Cohen, Irun (eds.), Design Principles for the Immune System and Other Distributed Autonomous Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mitchell, Melanie (2002). Perception and Analogy-making in Complex Adaptive Systems. Available at <http://www.jsmf.org/grants/cs/essays/2002/mitchell.htm.>

Norman, Timothy, Carbogim, Daniela V., Krabbe, Erik C. and Walton, Douglas N. (2003). Argument and multi-agent systems. In Reed, Chris and Norman, Timothy (eds.), Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 15–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parsons, Simon, and Jennings, Nicholas R. (1996). Negotiation through argumentation – a preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems. Menlo Park, Calif.: AAAI Press, 267–274.Google Scholar

Parsons, Simon, Sierra, Carles, and Jennings, Nicholas R. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8 (3): 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Patry, William (forthcoming). Patry on Copyright. Rochester, N.Y.: West Publishing.

Pearl, Judea (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pearl, Judea (2001). Causal inference in the health sciences: A conceptual introduction. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 2: 189–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pearl, Judea (2002). Bayesianism and causality, or, why I am only a half-Bayesian. In Corfield, David and Williamson, Jan (eds.), Foundations of Bayesianism, Applied Logic Series Volume 24. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 19–36. Document available on the personal web page of Judea Pearl.Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. (1965). Collected Papers of Charles S. Peirce. Edited by Hartshorne, Charles and Weiss, Paul. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Perelman, Chaim, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated by Wilkinson, J. and Weaver, P.. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Peter of Spain (1980). Language in Dispute. Translated by Dinneen, Francis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Pinto, Robert C., Blair, Anthony J. and Parr, Katherine E. (1993). Reasoning: A Practical Guide for Canadian Students. Scarborough, Ont.: Prentice Hall Canada.Google Scholar

Plato, (1835). Phaedo. Translated by Stanford, C.. New York: Hurst and Company.Google Scholar

Plato, (1990). Sophist. Translated by Cobb, William. Savage, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar

Pollock, John L. (1974). Knowledge and Justification. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Pollock, John L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11: 481–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pollock, John L. (1989). How to Build a Person. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Prakken, Henry (1993). An argumentation framework in default logic. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 9: 91–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, Henry (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, Henry (2001). Modelling defeasibility in law: Logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae 48: 253–271.Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry (2002). Incomplete arguments in legal discourse: A case study. In Bench-Capon, Trevor, Daskalopulu, Aspassia, and Winkels, Radboud (eds.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 93–102.Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry (2005). AI and law, logic and argumentation schemes. Argumentation 19: 303–320. Available at <http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/henry>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, Henry, and Renooij, Silja (2001). Reconstructing causal reasoning about evidence: A case study. In Verheij, Bart, Lodder, Arno R., Loui, Ronald P., and Muntjewerjj, A. (eds.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 131–142.Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry, and Sartor, Giovanni (1996). A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, Henry, and Sartor, Giovanni (1997). Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7: 25–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, Henry, and Sartor, Giovanni (2004). The three faces of defeasibility in the law. Ratio Juris 17 (1): 118–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, Henry, and Vreeswijk, Gerard (2002). Logics for defeasible argumentation. In Gabbay, Dov and Guenther, Franz (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, Dordercht: Kluwer, 218–319.Google Scholar

Quintilian, Maximus Fabius (1996). Institutio Oratoria. Translated by Butler, H. E.. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Rahwan, Iyad, Zablith, Fouad, and Reed, Chris (2007). Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web. Artificial Intelligenc 171: 897–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ramus, Petrus (1969). Dialecticae Libri Duo. Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum; New York: Da Capo Press.Google Scholar

Reed, Chris, and Norman, Timothy J. (eds.) (2003). Argumentation Machines. Dordrecht,: Kluwer.

Reed, Chris, and Rowe, Glenn (2004). Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools, 13 (4): 961–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reed, Chris, and Rowe, Glenn (2005). Araucaria, Version 3. Available free at <http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria>.

Reed, Chris, and Rowe, Glenn (2001). Araucaria: Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagramming and XML. Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee Technical Report. Available at <http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed>.

Reed, Chris, and Walton, Douglas (2005). Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11: 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reed, Chris (1997). Representing and applying knowledge for argumentation in a social context. AI & Society 11 (3–4): 138–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reed, Chris (1998). Dialogue frames in agent communication. In Demazeau, Yves (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (ICMAS'98). Paris: IEEE Press, 246–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reed, Chris (1998). “Generating Arguments in Natural Language.” Ph.D. thesis, University College, London.

Reed, Chris (1999). The role of saliency in generating natural language arguments. In Dean, Thomas (ed.), Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'99). Stockholm: Morgan Kaufmann, 876–883.Google Scholar

Reed, Chris, Norman, Timothy J., and Gabbay, Dov (eds). “Handbook of Argument and Computation.” Unpublished manuscript.

Reiter, Raymond (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13: 81–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rigotti, Eddo, and Rocci, Andrea (2001). Sens – non-sens – contresens. Studies in Communication Sciences 1: 45–80.Google Scholar

Rigotti, Eddo (1997). La retorica classica come una prima teoria della comunicazione. In Bussi, Elena, Bondi, Marina, and Gatta, Francesca (eds.), Understanding Argument: The Informal Logic of Discourse. Bologna: CLUEB, 1–8.Google Scholar

Rigotti, Eddo. “Elementi di Topica.” Unpublished manuscript.

Rigotti, Eddo (2006a). Can classical topics be revived within the contemporary theory of argumentation? Paper presented at the ISSA Conference on Argumentation Theory, Amsterdam, June.

Rissland, Edwina L. (1990). Artificial intelligence and law: stepping stones to a model of legal reasoning. Yale Law Journal 99: 1957–1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Rowe, Glenn, Reed, Chris, Macagno, Fabrizio, and Walton, Douglas (2006). Araucaria as a tool for diagramming arguments in teaching and studying philosophy. Teaching Philosophy 29 (2): 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sadock, Jerrold M. (1997). Modus brevis: The truncated argument. In Beach, Woodford, Fox, Samuel, and Philosoph, Shulamith (eds.), Papers from the 13th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 545–554.Google Scholar

Schauer, Frederick (1995). Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision-Making in Law and Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schellens, Peter Jan, and DeJong, Menno, (2004). Argumentation schemes in persuasive brochures. Argumentation 18: 295–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schupp, Franz (1988). Logical Problems of the Medieval Theory of Consequences. Napoli, Italy: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar

Scriven, Michael (1964). Critical study of “The Structure of Science.” Review of Metaphysics 17: 403–424.Google Scholar

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

Empiricus, Sextus (1933). Outlines of Pyrrhonism. Translated by Bury, R. G.. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sherwin, Emily (1999). A defense of analogical reasoning in law. University of Chicago Law Review 66: 1179–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simmons, Reid (1992). The roles of associational and causal reasoning in problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 53 (2–3): 159–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henkemans, Snoeck, Francisca, A (2001). Argumentation structures. In Eemeren, Frans H. (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 101–134.Google Scholar

Stump, Eleonore (1982). Topics: Their development and absorption into the consequences. In Kretzmann, Norman, Kenny, Anthony, and Pinborg, Jan (eds.), Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 315–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Eleonore (1989). Dialectic and Its Place in the Development of Medieval Logic. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Stump, Eleonore (trans.) (1978). Boethius' “De topicis differentiis.”Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Stump, Eleonore (trans.) (1988). In Ciceronis Topica. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Tardini, Stefano (2005). Endoxa and communities: Grounding enthymematic arguments. Studies in Communication Sciences. Special Issue, “Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction”: 279–294.

Thomson, Judith J. (1971). A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1: 47–66.Google Scholar

Tillers, Peter (2002). Making sense of the process of proof in litigation. In Tillers, Peter. and MacCrimmon, Marilyn (eds.), The Dynamics of Judicial Proof. Heidelberg: Springer, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tolchinsky, Pancho, Modgil, Sanjay, Cortés, Ulises, and Sànchez-Marrè, Miquel (2006). CBR and argument schemes for collaborative decision making. In Dunne, Paul and Bench-Capon, Trevor (eds.), Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 71–82.Google Scholar

Toulmin, Stephen E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Toulmin, Stephen E., Richard, Rieke, and Janik, Allan (1979). An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Gelder, Tim, and Rizzo, Alberto (2001). Reason!Able across the curriculum. In Is IT an Odyssey in Learning? Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Computing in Education Group of Victoria. Victoria, Australia.

Verheij, Bart, and Hage, Jaap (1994). Reasoning by analogy: A formal reconstruction. In Prakken, H., Muntjewerff, A. J., and Soeteman, A. (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems. Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande, 65–78.Google Scholar

Verheij, Bart (1996). Rules, Reasons and Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maastricht.

Verheij, Bart (1999a). Logic, context and valid inference. Or: Can there be a logic of law? In Herik, Jaap, Moens, Marie-Francine, Bing, Jon, Buggenhout, Bea, Zeleznikow, John, and Grütters, Carolus (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems. JURIX 1999: The Twelfth Conference. Available at <http://citeseer.jst.psu.edu/verheij99logic.html>.

Verheij, Bart (1999). Automated argument assistance for lawyers. In The Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law: Proceedings of the Conference (June 14–17, Oslo, Norway). New York: ACM, 43–52. Available at <[email protected], http://www.metajur.unimaas.nl/~bart>.

Verheij, Bart (2001). Legal decision making as dialectical theory construction with argumentation schemes. In ICAIL 2001: The Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: ACM, 225–226. The full paper is available at <http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications/pdf/argsch.pdf>.Google Scholar

Verheij, Bart (2003). Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: Towards a methodology for the investigation of argumentation schemes. In Eemeren, Frans, Blair, Anthony, Willard, Charles., and Henkemans, Francisca Snoeck (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA 2002). Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 1033–1037.Google Scholar

Verheij, Bart (2003a). DefLog: On the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation 13: 319–346. Available at <http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications.htm>.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Verheij, Bart (2003b). Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Verheij, Bart (2005). Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Waller, Bruce N. (2001). Classifying and analyzing analogies. Informal Logic 21: 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1982). Argument: The Logic of Fallacies. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar

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

Walton, Douglas (1987). The ad hominem argument as an informal fallacy. Argumentation 1: 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1989). Informal Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1990). Practical Reasoning. Savage, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1991). Bias, critical doubt and fallacies. Argumentation and Advocacy 28: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1992). Nonfallacious arguments from ignorance. American Philosophical Quarterly 29: 381–387.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1992a). Slippery Slope Arguments. Newport News, Va.: Vale Press.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1992b). The Place of Emotion in Argument. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

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

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

Walton, Douglas (1996a). The argument of the beard. Informal Logic 18: 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1996b). Arguments from Ignorance. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1997). Appeal to Expert Opinion. University Park: Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1997a). Actions and inconsistency: The closure problem of practical reasoning. In Holmstrom-Hintikka, Ghita and Tuomela, Raimo (eds.), Contemporary Action Theory, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 159–175.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1997b). Appeal to Pity. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

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

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

Walton, Douglas (1999). Appeal to Popular Opinion. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2000). Scare Tactics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2000a). The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese 123: 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2001). Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic 21: 141–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2001a). Enthymemes, common knowledge and plausible inference. Philosophy and Rhetoric 34: 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2001b). Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic 21: 141–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2002). Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2002a). The sunk costs fallacy or argument from waste. Argumentation 16: 473–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2002b). Are some modus ponens arguments deductively invalid? Informal Logic 22: 19–46.Google Scholar

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

Walton, Douglas (2006a). Character Evidence: An Abductive Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2006b). Argument from appearance: A new dialectical scheme. Logique et Analyse 195: 319–340.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2007). Witness Testimony Evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas, and Reed, Chris (2002). Argumentation schemes and defeasible inferences. In Giuseppe Carenini, Floriana Grasso, and Chris Reed (eds.), Working Notes of the ECAI'2002 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument. Lyon, France, 45–55.

Walton, Douglas, and Gordon, Thomas F. (2005). Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In Dunne, Paul and Bench-Capon, Trevor (eds.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, IAAIL Workshop Series. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 103–111.Google Scholar

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

Walton, Douglas, and Reed, Chris (2003). Diagramming, argumentation schemes and critical questions. In Eemeren, Frans H., Blair, J. Anthony, Willard, Charles A., and Henkemans, A. Francisca Snoek (eds.), Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas, and Reed, Chris (2005). Argumentation schemes and enthymemes. Synthese 145, 2005, 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas, Prakken, Henry, and Reed, Chris (2003). Argumentation schemes and generalizations in reasoning about evidence. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Edinburgh, 2003. New York: ACM, 32–41.

Warnick, Barbara (2000). Two systems of invention: The topics in the Rhetoric and The New Rhetoric. In Gross, Alan G. and Walzer, Arthur E., (eds.), Rereading Aristotle's “Rhetoric.”Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 107–129.Google Scholar

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

Weitzenfeld, Julian (1984). Valid reasoning from analogy. Philosophy of Science 51 (1): 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wells, Simon (2007). “Formal Dialectical Games in Multiagent Argumentation,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland.

,William of Ockham (1966). Introduction to Logic. Translated by Kretzmann, Norman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Windes, Russel R., and Hastings, Arthur (1965). Argumentation and Advocacy. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Woods, John, and Walton, Douglas. (1982). Argument: The Logic of Fallacies. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar

Wooldridge, Michael, and Jennings, Nicholas R. (1995). Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review 10 (2): 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Wright, Richard W. (1985). Causation in tort law. California Law Review 73: 1735–1828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yu, Bin, and Singh, Munindar P. (2000). A social mechanism of reputation management in electronic communities. In Klusch, Matthias and Kerschberg, Larry (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1860. London: Springer, 154–165.Google Scholar