This paper provides a formal model for the burden of persuasion in dialogues, and in particular, in legal proceedings. The model shows how an allocation of the burden of persuasion may induce single outcomes in dialectical contexts in which, without such an allocation, the status of conflicting arguments would remain undecided. Our approach is based on a two-stage labelling. The firststage labelling determines what arguments are accepted, rejected or undecided, regardless of the allocation of burden. The second-stage labelling revises the dialectical status of first-stage undecided arguments, according to burdens of persuasion. The labelling is finally extended in such a way as to obtain a complete labelling. Our model combines two ideas that have emerged in the debate on the burden of persuasion: the idea that the burden of persuasion determines the solution of conflicts between arguments, and the idea that its satisfaction depends on the dialectical status of the arguments concerned. Our approach also addresses inversions of the burden of persuasion, namely, cases in which the burden of persuasion over an argument does not extend to its subarguments.

Burden of Persuasion in Argumentation / Roberta Calegari ; Giovanni Sartor. - In: ELECTRONIC PROCEEDINGS IN THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE. - ISSN 2075-2180. - ELETTRONICO. - 325:(2020), pp. 151-163. (Intervento presentato al convegno International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP) 2020 tenutosi a Rende (CS), Italy nel 18-24 september 2020) [10.4204/EPTCS.325.21].

Burden of Persuasion in Argumentation

Roberta Calegari;Giovanni Sartor
2020

Abstract

This paper provides a formal model for the burden of persuasion in dialogues, and in particular, in legal proceedings. The model shows how an allocation of the burden of persuasion may induce single outcomes in dialectical contexts in which, without such an allocation, the status of conflicting arguments would remain undecided. Our approach is based on a two-stage labelling. The firststage labelling determines what arguments are accepted, rejected or undecided, regardless of the allocation of burden. The second-stage labelling revises the dialectical status of first-stage undecided arguments, according to burdens of persuasion. The labelling is finally extended in such a way as to obtain a complete labelling. Our model combines two ideas that have emerged in the debate on the burden of persuasion: the idea that the burden of persuasion determines the solution of conflicts between arguments, and the idea that its satisfaction depends on the dialectical status of the arguments concerned. Our approach also addresses inversions of the burden of persuasion, namely, cases in which the burden of persuasion over an argument does not extend to its subarguments.
2020
Proceedings 36th International Conference on Logic Programming (Technical Communications)(ICLP 2020)
151
163
Burden of Persuasion in Argumentation / Roberta Calegari ; Giovanni Sartor. - In: ELECTRONIC PROCEEDINGS IN THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE. - ISSN 2075-2180. - ELETTRONICO. - 325:(2020), pp. 151-163. (Intervento presentato al convegno International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP) 2020 tenutosi a Rende (CS), Italy nel 18-24 september 2020) [10.4204/EPTCS.325.21].
Roberta Calegari ; Giovanni Sartor
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
paper.cgi.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 234.79 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
234.79 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/772595
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 9
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact