Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-gs9qr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T01:50:55.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Informal logic dialogue games in human–computer dialogue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2011

Tangming Yuan ,
David Moore ,
Chris Reed ,
Andrew Ravenscroft  and
Nicolas Maudet
Tangming Yuan*
Affiliation:
Computer Science Department, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5AT, UK; e-mail: tommy@cs.york.ac.uk;
David Moore*
Affiliation:
School of Computing, Faculty of Arts, Environment and Technology, Leeds Metropolitan University, Beckett Park, Leeds LS6 3QS, UK; e-mail: d.moore@leedsmet.ac.uk;
Chris Reed*
Affiliation:
School of Computing, College of Art, Science and Engineering, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, Scotland; e-mail: chris@computing.dundee.ac.uk;
Andrew Ravenscroft*
Affiliation:
Learning Technology Research Institute (LTRI), Faculty of Art, Humanities, Language and Education, London Metropolitan University, London, E2 8AA, UK; e-mail: a.ravenscroft@londonmet.ac.uk;
Nicolas Maudet*
Affiliation:
LAMSADE Laboratory, University Paris 9 Dauphine, 75775 Paris Cedex 1, France; e-mail: maudet@lamsade.dauphine.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Informal logic (IL) is an area of philosophy rich in models of communication and discourse with a heavy focus on argument and ‘dialogue games’. Computational dialectics is a maturing strand of research that is focused on implementing these dialogue games. The aim of this paper is to review research on applying IL dialogue games into human–computer dialogue design. We argue that IL dialogue games tend to have a number of attractive properties for human computer dialogue and that their computational utilization in this area has been increasing recently. Despite the strength of the case for IL, a number of important barriers need to be overcome if the potential of IL is to be fulfilled. These barriers are examined and means of overcoming them discussed.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , 12 May 2011 , pp. 159 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amgoud, L., Maudet, N. 2000. On the cooperative behaviour of an argumentation based dialogue system. In Proceedings of the Workshop Cooperative Models Based on Argumentation in Problem Solving, Nice, France, 1–6.Google Scholar
Amgoud, L., Maudet, N. 2002. Strategical considerations for argumentative agents. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning (NMR'2002), Special Session on Argument, Dialogue, and Decision, Toulouse.Google Scholar
Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. 2000. Argumentation, dialogue, and negotiation. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Berlin, Germany, 338–342.Google Scholar
Andrews, R 1995. Teaching and Learning Argument. Cassel.Google Scholar
Atkinson, K. 2005. What Should We Do?: Computational Representation of Persuasive Argument in Practical Reasoning. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool, UK.Google Scholar
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P. 2005. A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument over proposals for action. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems. Special Issue on Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems 11(2), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 1998. Specification and Implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Legal Knowledge Based Systems (JURIX), Nijmegen: Gerard Noodt Institute (GNI), 5–20.Google Scholar
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 2000. Issues in argument and legal reasoning. In Symposium on Argument and Computation, Bonskeid House, Perthshire, Scotland. http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~tnorman/sac/Google Scholar
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Dunne, P. E. 2007. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171, 619–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Dunne, P. E. S., Leng, P. H 1991. Interacting with knowledge based systems through dialogue games. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference, Expert Systems and Their Applications, Avignon, 123–130.Google Scholar
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Dunne, P. E. S., Leng, P. H. 1992. A dialogue game for dialectical interaction with expert systems, In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference, Expert Systems and Their Applications, Avignon, France, 105–113.Google Scholar
Bouwer, A. 1998. ArgueTrack: the design of an argumentative dialogue interface. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Human-Computer Conversation, Bellagio, Italy.Google Scholar
Bouwer, A. 1999. ArgueTrack: computer support for educational argumentation. Poster presentation at AI-ED'99. In The 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Le Mans.Google Scholar
Bunt, H. C. 1994. Context and dialogue control. Think Quarterly 3(1), 19–31.Google Scholar
Burton, M., Brna, P., Pilkington, R. 2000. Clarissa: a laboratory for the modelling of collaboration. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 11, 79–105.Google Scholar
Burton, M., Brna, P., Treasure-Jones, T. 1997. Splitting the collaborative atom: how to support learning about collaboration. In Artificial Intelligence in Education: Knowledge and Media in Learning Systems, du Boulay, B. & Mizoguchi, R. (eds). IOS, 135–142.Google Scholar
Carbogim, D. V., Robertson, D., Lee, J. 2000. Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. The Knowledge Engineering Review 15(2), 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesnevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S. 2006. Towards an argument interchange format. Knowledge Engineering Review 21(4), 293–316.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., Schaefer, E. F. 1989. Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science 13, 259–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, R., McKendree, J., Tobin, R., Lee, J., Mayes, T. 1999. Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse: a controlled comparison. Instructional Science 27(6), 431–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, G., McDougall, A. 2000. Mainstreaming AIED into education? International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 11, 197–207.Google Scholar
Cunningham-Atkins, H., Powell, N. J., Moore, D., Hobbs, D., Sharpe, S. 2004. The role of cognitive style in educational computer conferencing. The British Journal of Educational Technology 35(1), 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dessalles, J. L. 1998. The Interplay of Desire and Necessity in Dialogue. In Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Hulstijn, J. & Nijholt, A. (eds). University of Twente, 89–97.Google Scholar
Digital Dialogue Games for Learning website, 2007. Interloc Dialogue Games. http://www.interloc.org/, accessed 17 August 2007.Google Scholar
Dignum, F., Vreeswijk, G. 2004. Towards a testbed for multi-party dialogues. In Advances in Agent Communication, Dignum, F. (ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2922, 212–230. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Dung, P. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and N-Person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, A. 1992. Reviewing and correcting specifications. Instructional Science 21, 183–198.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, A., Fuks, H. 1990. Conversation analysis and specification. In Computers and Conversation, Luff, N. (ed.). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, A. 2000. Informal logic and its implications for philosophy. Informal Logic 20(2), 109–115.Google Scholar
Freeman, K., Farley, A. M. 1996. A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 163–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frohlich, D. M., Luff, P. 1990. Applying the technology of conversation to the technology for conversation. In Computers and Conversation, Luff, P., Gilbert, G. N. & Frohlich, D. M. (eds). Academic Press, London and New York, 189–222.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R. 1991. Critical thinking and adult education: a conceptual model for developing critical thinking in adult learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education 10(4), 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girle, R. A. 1986. Dialogue and discourse. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Computer Assisted Learning in Tertiary Education Conference, Bishop, G. & Van Lint, W. (eds). Adelaide, distributed by Office of Continuing Education, University of Adelaide.Google Scholar
Gordon, T. 1994. The pleadings game: an exercise in computational dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2(4), 239–292.Google Scholar
Gordon, T. 1996. Computational dialectics. In Computers as Assistants, A New Generation of Support Systems, Hoschka, P. (ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gordon, T., Karacapilidis, N. 1997. The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial intelligence and Law, Melbourne, Australia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, T., Angi, V., Gernot, R., Oliver, M. 2001. Zeno: groupware for discourses on the Internet. Künstliche Intelligenz 2(1), 43–45.Google Scholar
Grasso, F., Cawsey, A., Jones, R. 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, 1077–1115.Google Scholar
Groarke, L. 2002. Informal Logic. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2002/entries/logic-informal/Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. 1970. Fallacies. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. 1971. Mathematical models of dialogue. Theora 37, 130–155.Google Scholar
Hartley, J. R., Hintze, D. 1990. Dialogue and learner modelling. In Student Model Acquisition in a Natural Laboratory (NATLAB), Cheri, S. A. (ed.). GEC DELTA Project D-1016 Final Report.Google Scholar
Hewitt, J., Teplovs, C. 1999. An analysis of growth patterns in computer conferencing threads. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, Palo Alto, California, 232–241.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, D. 2000. Statement on practical reasoning. In Symposium on Argument and Computation, Bonskeid House, Perthshire, Scotland. http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~tnorman/sac/Google Scholar
Hoadley, C. (ed.) 1999. Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. 2000. Dialogue games are recipes for joint action. In Proceedings of the fourth Workshop on Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (Götalog), Göteborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. 1998. Postscript on Qualia. In His Mind, Method, and Conditionals: Selected Essays, London, 76–79.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. H., Blair, J. A. 2000. Informal logic: an overview. Informal Logic 20(2), 93–107.Google Scholar
Krabbe, E. 2000. Symposium on argument and computation group: argument and computational societies-position paper. In Symposium on Argument and Computation, Bonskeid House, Perthshire, Scotland. http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~tnorman/sac/Google Scholar
Laurillard, D. 1995. Multimedia and the changing experience of the learner. British Journal of Educational Technology 26(3), 179–189.Google Scholar
Lee, J. 2006. Vicarious learning and multimodal dialogue. In Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Kerkrade, Netherlands, 1202–1203.Google Scholar
Leenes, R. E., Lodder, A. R., Hage, J. C. 1994. A dialogue game for legal arguments, law. Computers and Artificial Intelligence 3(2–3), 211–226.Google Scholar
Lewin, I. 2000. A formal model of conversational game theory. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Goteborg.Google Scholar
Lodder, A. R. 1998. Dialaw: on Legal Justification and Dialogue Games. PhD thesis, University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
Lodder, A. R., Herczog, A. 1995. DiaLaw: A dialogical framework for modelling legal reasoning. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence And Law, New York, 146–155.Google Scholar
Loui, R. P. 1998. Process and policy: resource-bounded nondemonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, J. D. 1979. Question–begging in non–cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 117–133.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. D. 1990. Four dialogue systems. Studia Logica XLIX 4, 567–583.Google Scholar
Maudet, N., Evrard, F. 1998. A generic framework for dialogue game implementation. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (TWLT13), Hulstijn, J. & Nijholt A. (eds). University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
Maudet, N., Moore, D. 2001. Dialogue games as dialogue models for interacting with, and via, computers. Informal Logic 21(3), 219–243.Google Scholar
McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., Scanlon, E. 2004. Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning: Special Issue: Developing Dialogue for Learning 20(3), 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBurney, P., Parsons, S. 2002. Games that agents play: a formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11(3), 315–334.Google Scholar
Moore, D. 1993. Dialogue Game Theory for Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Leeds Metropolitan University, UK.Google Scholar
Moore, D. 2000. A framework for using multimedia within argumentation systems. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 9(2), 83–98.Google Scholar
Moore, D., Hobbs, D. J. 1996. Computational use of philosophical dialogue theories. Informal Logic 18(2), 131–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D., McGrath, P., Thorpe, J. 2000. Computer aided learning for people with autism – a framework for research and development. Innovations in Education and Training International 37(3), 218–228.Google Scholar
National Curriculum Council 1990a. Curriculum Guidance 7 – Environmental Education. York: NCC.Google Scholar
National Curriculum Council 1990b. Curriculum Guidance 8 – Education for Citizenship. York: NCC.Google Scholar
Okamoto, T., Inaba, A. 1997. The intelligent discussion co-ordinating system for CSCL environment. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia/Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Muldner, T. & Reeves, T.C. (eds). Calgary, II, AACE (Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education), 794–799.Google Scholar
Pasquier, P., Chaib-draa, B. 2005. Agent communication pragmatics: the cognitive coherence approach. In Cognitive Systems Research, Ron Sun (ed.). Elsevier, 364–395.Google Scholar
Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Pilkington, R. M. 1992. Intelligent Help, Communicating with Knowledge Based Systems. Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Pilkington, R. M. 1998. Dialogue games in support of qualitative reasoning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 14, 308–320.Google Scholar
Pilkington, R. M., Hartley, J. R., Hintze, D., Moore, D. J. 1992. Learning to argue and arguing to learn: an interface for computer-based dialogue games. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 3(3), 275–295.Google Scholar
Pilkington, R. M., Mallen, C. 1996. Dialogue games to support reasoning and reflection in diagnostic tasks. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Brna, P., Paiva, A. & Self, J. (eds). Fundacao Calouste Gulbenkian.Google Scholar
Pilkington, R., Parker-Jones, C. 1996. Interacting with computer-based simulation: the role of dialogue. Computers and Education 27(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Poesio, M., Traum, D. 1998. Towards an axiomatization of dialogue acts. In Proceedings of the Twente Workshop on the Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogues (13th Twente Workshop on Language Technology), Hulstijn, J. & Nijholt, A. (eds). Enschede, 207–222.Google Scholar
Prakken, H. 2000. On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments and counterarguments. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence. Springer. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 1919, 224–238. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Prakken, H. 2001. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese, Special Issue on New Perspectives in Dialogical Logic 127, 187–219.Google Scholar
Prakken, H. 2005. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15, 1009–1040.Google Scholar
Prakken, H. 2006. Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21, 163–188.Google Scholar
Prakken, H. 2008. A formal model of adjudication. In Argumentation, Logic and Law, Rahman, S. (ed.). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Prakken, H., Sartor, G. 1996. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 331–368.Google Scholar
Quignard, M., Baker, M. 1997. Modelling argumentation and belief revision in agent interactions. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Science (ECCS97), Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., Reed, C. 2007. Towards large scale argumentation support on the semantic web. In Proceedings of AAAI-07 (Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence), Vancouver.Google Scholar
Rahwan, I., McBurney, P. 2007. Argumentation technology: introduction to the special issue. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22(6), 21–23.Google Scholar
Ravenscroft, A. 2008. Social Software, Web 2.0 and learning: status and implications of an evolving paradigm. Guest Editorial for Special Issue of Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (JCAL), 21(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
Ravenscroft, A. 2000. Designing argumentation for conceptual development. Computers & Education 34, 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravenscroft, A. 2007. Promoting thinking and conceptual change with digital dialogue games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (JCAL), 23(6), 453–465.Google Scholar
Ravenscroft, A., Matheson, P. 2002. Developing and evaluating dialogue games for collaborative E-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 18, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravenscroft, A., McAlister, S. 2006. Designing interaction as a dialogue game: linking social and conceptual dimensions of the learning process. In Interactions in Online Education: Implications for Theory and Practice, Juwah, C. (ed.), Routledge, 73–90.Google Scholar
Ravenscroft, A., McAlister, S., Baur, E. 2006. Development, Piloting and Evaluation of Interloc: An Open Source Tool Supporting Dialogue Games in Education. Final Project Report, Learning Technology Research Institute, London Metropolitan University, UK and JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee), Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
Ravenscroft, A., McAlister, S. 2008. Investigating and promoting educational argumentation: towards new digital practices. International Journal of Research and Method in Education (IJRME), Special Issue on Researching Argumentation in Educational contexts: new methods, new directions. Coffin C. and O'Halloran K. (eds). 31(3), 317–335.Google Scholar
Ravenscroft, A., Pilkington, R. M. 2000. Investigation by design: developing dialogue models to support reasoning and conceptual change. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 11, 273–298.Google Scholar
Ravenscroft, A., Wegerif, R. B., Hartley, J. R. 2007. Reclaiming thinking: dialectic, dialogic and learning in the digital age. Special Issue of British Journal of Educational Psychology: Psychological Insights into the Use of New Technologies in Education 11(5), 39–57.Google Scholar
Ravenscroft, A., Sagar, M., Baur, E., Oriogun, P. 2008. Ambient pedagogies, meaningful learning and social software. In Social Software & Developing Community Ontologies, Hatzipanagos, S. & Warburton, S. (eds). IGI Global Publishing, 432–450.Google Scholar
Ravenscroft, A., McAlister, S., Sagar, M. 2009. Digital Dialogue Games (DDGs): Cross-institutional Implementation and Evaluation of Digital Dialogue Games for Inclusive and Personalised Learning. Final Report for UK Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
Reed, C. 1998. Dialogue frames in agent communication. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, Paris, 246–253.Google Scholar
Reed, C., Grasso, F. 2007. Recent advances in computational models of argument. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, C., Wells, S. 2007. Dialogical argument as an interface to complex debates. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22(6), 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichman, R. 1985. Getting Computers to Talk Like You and Me. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Retalis, S., Pain, H., Haggith, M. 1996. Arguing with the devil: teaching in controversial domains. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Third International Conference, ITS'96, Montreal, Canada.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, J. A. 1997. Object orientation in discourse structuring. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia/Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Muldner, T. & Reeves T. C. (eds), Calgary, II, AACE (Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education), 984–989.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. 2006. Group Cognition: Computer Support for Collaborative Knowledge Building, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steeples, C., Unsworth, C., Bryson, M., Goodyear, P., Riding, P., Fowell, S., Levy, P., Duffy, C. 1996. Technological support for teaching and learning: computer-mediated communications in higher education. Computers and Education 26(1), 71–80.Google Scholar
Stenning, K., McKendree, J., Lee, J., Cox, R. 1999. Vicarious learning from educational dialogue. In Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning Conference (CSCL-99), Stanford, 341–347.Google Scholar
Traum, D. 2004. Issues in multi-party dialogues. In Advances in Agent Communication, Dignum, F. (ed.). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2922, 201–211. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Veerman, A., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G. 2002. Collaborative argumentation in academic education. Instructional Science 30, 155–186.Google Scholar
Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 1995. IACAS: an implementation of Chisholm's principles of knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2nd Dutch/German Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, Utrecht, 225–234.Google Scholar
Vreeswijk, G. A. W., Brewka, G., Prakken, H. 2003. Special issue on computational dialectics: an introduction. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 317–318.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. 1984. Logical Dialogue Games and Fallacies. University Press of America.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. 1985. New directions in the logic of dialogue. Synthese 63, 259–274.Google Scholar
Walton, D. 1989a. Question-Reply Argumentation. Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. 1989b. Informal Logic:A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. 1998. The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. 2000. The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese 123, 327–346.Google Scholar
Walton, D., Krabbe, E. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, M. 2002. An Introduction to Multi-agent Systems. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Yuan, T. 2004. Human Computer Debate, A Computational Dialectics Approach. PhD thesis, Leeds Metropolitan University.Google Scholar
Yuan, T., Moore, D., Grierson, A. 2003. Computational agents as a test-bed to study philosophical model “DE”, a development of Mackenzie's “DC”. Journal of Informal Logic 23(3), 263–284.Google Scholar
Yuan, T., Moore, D., Grierson, A. 2007a. A human computer debating system and its dialogue strategies. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, Special Issue on Computational Models of Natural Argument 22(1), 133–156.Google Scholar
Yuan, T., Moore, D., Grierson, A. 2008. A human-computer dialogue system for educational debate, a computational dialectics approach. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 18, 3–26.Google Scholar
Yuan, T., Schulze, J 2008. ARG!Draw: an argument graphs drawing tool. In The Second International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, Toulouse.Google Scholar
Yuan, T., Svansson, V., Moore, D., Grierson, A. 2007b. A computer game for abstract argumentation. In Proceedings of IJCAI'2007 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, Hyderabad, India, 62–68.Google Scholar