A Model for the Burden of Persuasion in Argumentation

Last modified by Roberta Calegari on 2021/02/26 12:27

Roberta Calegari, Giovanni Sartor

This work provides a formal model for the burden of persuasion in legal proceedings. The model shows how the allocation of the burden of persuasion may induce a satisfactory outcome in contexts in which the assessment of conflicting ar- guments would, without such an allocation, remain undecided. The proposed model is based on an argumentation setting in which arguments may be accepted or re- jected according to whether the burden of persuasion falls on the conclusion of such arguments or on its complements. Our model merges two ideas that have emerged in the debate on the burden of persuasion: the idea that allocation of the burden of persuasion makes it possible to resolve conflicts between arguments, and the idea that its satisfaction depends on the dialectical statuses of the arguments involved. Our model also addresses cases in which the burden of persuasion is inverted, and cases in which burdens of persuasion are inferred through arguments.

Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2020: The Thirty-third Annual Conference, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 334, pages 13-22, 2020.
Serena Villata, Jakub Harašta, Petr Křemen (eds.)
Shortlisted for Best Paper Awards
@inproceedings{calegari-jurix2020,
location = {Brno, Czech Republic},
        Month = {9-11~} # dec,
booktitle = {Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2020: The Thirty-third Annual Conference},
Series = {Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications},
editor = {Villata, Serena and Harašta, Jakub and Křemen, Petr},
author = {Calegari, Roberta and Sartor, Giovanni},
title = {A Model for the Burden of Persuasion in Argumentation},
pages = {13-22},
doi = {10.3233/FAIA200845},
        Volume = 334,
        year=2020
}

Tags:
    

Data

2011 © aliCE Research Group @ DEIS, Alma Mater Studiorum-Università di Bologna
1.1