Alexy, R. (1989). A Theory of Legal Argumentation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, R. J. (1980). Structuring Jury Decisionmaking in Criminal Cases: A Unified Constitutional Approach to Evidentiary Devices, Harvard Law Review, 94(2), 321–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen, R. J. (1981). Presumptions in Civil Actions Reconsidered, Iowa Law Review, 66, 1981, 843–867.Google Scholar

Allen, R. J. (1993). How Presumptions Should be Allocated: Constitutional Adjudication, the Demands of Knowledge, and Epistemological Modesty, Northwestern University Law Review, 88(1), 436–456.Google Scholar

Allen, R. J. (1994). Burdens of Proof, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Modern Legal Discourse, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 17(3), 1994, 627–646.Google Scholar

Allen, R. J. and Callen, C. R. (2003). Teaching Bloody Instructions: Civil Presumptions and the Lessons of Isomorphism, Quinnipiac Law Review, 21, 933–960.Google Scholar

Allen, R. J. and Pardo, M. S. (2007). The Problematic Value of Mathematical Models of Evidence, Journal of Legal Studies, 36, 107–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, T., Shum, D. and Twining, W. (2005). Analysis of Evidence, 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aristotle, (1984). Posterior Analytics, The Complete Works of Aristotle, vol. 1. ed. Barnes, J., Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Armstrong, K. and Possley, M. (1999). The Verdict: Dishonor, Chicago Tribune, January 10, 1999, 1,12.

Ashford, H. A. and Risinger, D. M. (1969). Presumptions, Assumptions and Due Process in Criminal Cases: A Theoretical Overview, The Yale Law Journal, 79, 165–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atkinson, K. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2007). Argumentation and Standards of Proof, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 2007), ed. Winkels, Radboud, New York: ACM Press, 107–116.Google Scholar

Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and McBurney, P. (2005). A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and McBurney, P. (2006). Computational Representation of Practical Argument, Synthese, 152(2), 157–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. and Walton, D. (2013). Distinctive Features of Persuasion and Deliberation Dialogues, Argument and Computation, 4(2), 105–127.

Bailenson, J. (2001). Contrast Ratio: Shifting Burden of Proof in Informal Arguments, Discourse Processes, 32(1), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bailenson, J. and Rips, L. J. (1996). Informal Reasoning and Burden of Proof, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 3–16.3.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bailey, R. (1999). Precautionary Tale, (last accessed December 24, 2008).

Barnes, J. (1990). The Toils of Skepticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Barth, E. M. and Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1997). Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 5(4): 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2003). Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3), 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Doutre, S., and Dunne, P. E. (2007). Audiences in Argumentation Frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 171(1), 42–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and Sartor, G. (2003). A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values. Artificial Intelligence 150: 97–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Doutre, S. and Dunne, P. E. (2008). Asking the Right Question: Forcing Commitment in Examination Dialogues. Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, eds. Besnard, P., Doutre, S. and Hunter, A.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 49–60.Google Scholar

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

Bex, F. J., van den Braak, S.W., van Oostendorp, H., Prakken, H., Verheij, B. and Vreeswijk, G. (2007). Sense–making Software for Crime Investigation: How to Combine Stories and Arguments, Law, Probability and Risk 6, 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bex, F. J., van Koppen, P. J., Prakken, H., and Verheij, B. (2010). A Hybrid Formal Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18(10), 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bex, F. J. and Walton, D. (2012). Burdens and Standards of Proof for Inference to the Best Explanation: Three Case Studies, Law, Probability and Risk, 11(2–3), 113–133.

Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2003).Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence, Argument Schemes and Generalizations, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11(2–3), 125–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Black, E. and Hunter, A. (2007). A Generative Inquiry Dialogue System. Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1010–1017.Google Scholar

Black, E. and Hunter, A. (2009). An Inquiry Dialogue System, Autonomous Agent and Multi-Agent Systems 19(2), 173–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brandom, R. (1994). Making it Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Brewka, G. (2001). Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus, Journal of Logic and Computation 11(2), 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brewka, G. and Gordon, T. F. (2010). Carneades and Abstract Dialectical Frameworks: A Reconstruction. In Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., and Simari, G.R., eds., Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 3–12.Google Scholar

Brown, D. G. (1955). The Nature of Inference, The Philosophical Review, 64(3), 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caminada, M. (2004). For the Sake of Argument: Explorations into Argument-Based Reasoning, PhD thesis, Free University of Amsterdam: .

Caminada, M. (2008). On the Issue of Contraposition of Defeasible Rules. Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008. eds. Besnard, P., Doutre, S., and Hunter, A.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 109–115.Google Scholar

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

Cohen, L. J. (1977). The Probable and the Provable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, L. J. (1979). On the Psychology of Prediction: Whose is the Fallacy?Cognition, 7(4), 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, L. J. (1980). Some Historical Remarks on the Baconian Notion of Probability, Journal of the History of Ideas, 41 (2), 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DeMorgan, A. (1926). Formal Logic. The Open Court Company: London. Reprint of the original Taylor and Walton edition of 1847.Google Scholar

Dohnal, M. (1992). Ignorance and Uncertainty in Reliability Reasoning. Microelectronics and Reliability, 32(8), 1157–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doutre, S., McBurney, P., Wooldridge, M., and Barden, W. (2006). Information-Seeking Agent Dialogs with Permissions and Arguments, Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Technical Report: .

Dube, F. (2002). Judge Criticizes ‘Hired Gun’ Experts. National Post (Canada), November 18, 2002, A1,A5.

Dung, P. (1995).On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-person Games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dunne, P. E., Doutre, S., and Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2005). Discovering Inconsistency through Examination Dialogues. Proceedings IJCAI-05, (International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence. Edinburgh, 1560–1561. Available at: .Google Scholar

Farley, A. M. and Freeman, K. (1995). Burden of Proof in Legal Argumentation’, 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ed. Bench-Capon, T. J. M.. New York: ACM Press, 156–164.Google Scholar

Feteris, E. (1999). Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. (1980). Galileo and the Art of Reasoning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. (2005). Arguments about Arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, J. and Das, S. (2000). Safe and Sound: Artificial Intelligence in Hazardous Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Frank, J. (1963). Courts on Trial. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar

Freeman, J. B. (1995). The Appeal to Popularity and Presumption by Common Knowledge, Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, eds. Hansen, H. V.and Pinto, R. C., University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 265–273.Google Scholar

Freeman, K. and Farley, A. M. (1996). A Model of Argumentation and Its Application to Legal Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3–4), 163–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freestone, D. and Hey, E. (1996). Origins and Developments of the Precautionary Principle, The Precautionary Principle and International Law, eds. Freestone, David and Hey, Ellen. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 3–15.Google Scholar

Garner, B. A. (1990). Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th ed. St Paul, Minn: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar

Gaskins, R. H. (1992). Burdens of Proof in Modern Discourse. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Godden, D. M. and Walton, D. (2007). A Theory of Presumption for Everyday Argumentation, Pragmatics and Cognition, 15(2), 2007, 313–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Gordon, T. F. (2008). Hybrid Reasoning with Argumentation Schemes, CMNA 08: Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument. Patras, Greece.Google Scholar

Gordon, T. F. (2010). An Overview of the Carneades Argumentation Support System, Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation, eds. Reed, C. and Tindale, C. W., London: College Publications, 145–156.Google Scholar

Gordon, T. F. and Karacapilidis, N. (1997).The Zeno Argumentation Framework, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law, ed. Branting, L. Karl. New York: ACM Press, 10–18.Google Scholar

Gordon, T. F. and Walton, D. (2006). The Carneades Argumentation Framework, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, eds. Dunne, P. E. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 195–207.Google Scholar

Gordon, T. F. and Walton, D. (2006a). Pierson v. Post Revisited, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, eds. Dunne, P. E. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 208–219.Google Scholar

Gordon, T. F.Prakken, H., and Walton, D. (2007). The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof, Artificial Intelligence, 171(10–15), 875–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gordon, T. F. and Walton, D. (2009). Proof Burdens and Standards. Argumentation and Artificial Intelligence, eds. Rahwan, I. and Simari, G.. Berlin: Springer, 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Governatori, G. (2008). Defeasible Logic:

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation, in Davidson, D. and Harman, G., eds., The Logic of Grammar. Encino, CA: Dickenson, 64–75.Google Scholar

Hage, J. (2000). Dialectical Models in Artificial Intelligence and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 8(2–3): 137–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hage, J. C., Leenes, R., and Lodder, A. R. (1993). Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach Artificial Intelligence and Law 2(2): 113–167.

Hahn, U., and Oaksford, M. (2007). The Burden of Proof and its Role in Argumentation. Argumentation, 21(1), 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Hamblin, C. L. (1971). Mathematical Models of Dialogue. Theoria 37(2), 130–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hansen, H. V. (2003). Theories of Presumptions and Burdens of Proof, in Blair, J. A., Farr, D., Hansen, H. V., Johnson, R. H., and Tindale, C. W., eds., Informal Logic at 25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference. Windsor, Ontario: OSSA.Google Scholar

Hastings, A. C. (1963). A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar

Hathcock, J. N. (2000). The Precautionary Principle – an Impossible Burden of Proof for New Products, AgBioForum, 3(4), 255–258.Google Scholar

Hoenig, M. (2002). Products Liability: Jury Rejection of Uncontradicted Expert Testimony. New York Law Journal, 228: 3–6.Google Scholar

James, F. (1961). Burdens of Proof, Virginia Law Review, 47(1), 1961, 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kauffeld, F. J. (1998). Presumptions and Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing. Argumentation, 12(2), 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kauffeld, F. (2003). The Ordinary Practice of Presuming and Presumption with Special Attention to Veracity and Burden of Proof, Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, ed. van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A., and Henkemans, A. F. Snoek, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 136–146.Google Scholar

Keppens, J. (2009). Conceptions of Vagueness in Subjective Probability for Evidential Reasoning. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, ed. Governatori, G.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 89–99.Google Scholar

Kiralfy, A. (1987). The Burden of Proof. Abington: Professional Books.Google Scholar

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

Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Appeal to Ignorance, in Hansen, H. V. and Pinto, R. C., eds., Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 251–264.Google Scholar

Krabbe, E. C. W. (1996). Can We Ever Pin One Down to a Formal Fallacy? In van Benthem, J., van Eemeren, F. H., and Frank Veltman, eds., Logic and Argumentation, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 129–141.

Krabbe, E. C. W. (1999). Profiles of Dialogue, in Gerbrandy, J., Marx, M., de Rijke, M. and Venema, Y., eds., JFAK: Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of his 50th Birthday, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 25–36.Google Scholar

Krabbe, E. C. W. (2001). The Problem of Retraction in Critical Discussion. Synthese 127(1–2), 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krabbe, E. C. W. (2003). Metadialogues, Anyone Who Has a View, ed. Van Eemeren, F. H. et al., Dordrecht: Kluwer, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krabbe, E. C. W. (2007). On How to Get Beyond the Opening Stage, Argumentation, 21(3), 2007, 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krabbe, E. C. W. (2013). Topical Roots of Formal Dialectic. Argumentation, 27(1), 71–87.CrossRef

Lascher, E. L. (1999). The Politics of Automobile Insurance Reform: Ideas, Institutions, and Public Policy in North America. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Laudan, L. (2006). Truth, Error and Criminal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lodder, Arno R. (1999). Dialaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Loftus, E. F. (2003). Our Changeable Memories: Legal and Practical Implications. Neuroscience, 4(3), 231–234.Google ScholarPubMed

Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting Misinformation in the Human Mind: A 30-year Investigation of the Malleability of Memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Loui, R. P. (1998). Process and Policy: Resource-Bounded Nondemonstrative Reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macagno, F. and Walton, D. (2011). Reasoning from Paradigms and Negative Evidence, Pragmatics and Cognition, 19(1), 92–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mackenzie, J. D. (1979). How to Stop Talking to Tortoises, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 20(4), 705–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mackenzie, J. D. (1981). The Dialectics of Logic. Logique et Analyse, 24, 159–177.Google Scholar

Mackenzie, J. (1990). Four Dialogue Systems. Studia Logica 49(4), 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McBurney, P. and Parsons, S. (2001). Chance Discovery Using Dialectical Argumentation. 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., Hitchcock, D. and Parsons, S. (2007). The Eightfold Way of Deliberation Dialogue, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1), 95–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morman, D. (2005). The Wild and Wooly World of Inference and Presumptions – When Silence is Deafening, The Florida Bar Journal, 79(10), 38–43.Google Scholar

Nute, D. (2001). Defeasible Logic: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Proceedings of INAP 2001, 14th International Conference on Applications of Prolog, IF Computer Japan, Tokyo, 87–114.Google Scholar

Nute, D. (1994). Defeasible Logic. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume 3: Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 353–395.Google Scholar

Pardo, M. S. and Allen, R. J. (2007). Juridical Proof and the Best Explanation, Law and Philosophy 27(3), 223–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Parsons, S. and Jennings, N. (1997). Negotiation through Argumentation: A Preliminary Report. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ed. Tokoro, Mario. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, 267–274.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1934a). Belief and Judgement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1934b). Collected Papers, vol V. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1971). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. In J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver (trans.), 2nd edition, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (First published, as La Nouvelle Rhetorique, in 1958.)CrossRef

Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry. Cambridge: MA, The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Prakken, H. (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, H. (2001). Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure, Fundamenta Informaticae 48(2), 253–271.Google Scholar

Prakken, H. (2001a). Relating Protocols for Dynamic Dispute with Logics for Defeasible Argumentation. Synthese 127(1–2), 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, H. (2002). Models of Dispute Resolution: A Formal Framework and an Application. , 1–69.

Prakken, H. (2005). Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6), 1009–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, H. (2006). Formal Systems for Persuasion Dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(2), 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1997). Argument-based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities, Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7(1–2), 25–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (2006). Presumptions and Burdens of Proof, 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. 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. Legal Evidence and Burden of Proof, ed. Kaptein, H., Prakken, H., and Verheij, B. Farnham: Ashgate, 223–253.Google Scholar

Prakken, H., Reed, C., and Walton, D. (2005). Dialogues about the Burden of Proof, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on AI and Law, June 6–11, Bologna, Italy. New York: The Association for Computing Machinery, 115–124.

Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (2011). On Modelling Burdens and Standards of Proof in Structured Argumentation. In Atkinson, K. D. (ed.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2011: The Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 83–92.Google Scholar

Recuerda, M. (2008). Dangerous Interpretations of the Precautionary Principle and the Foundational Values of the European Food Law: Risk versus Risk, Journal of Food Law and Policy, 4(1), 1–44.Google Scholar

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

Reed, C. and Rowe, G. (2004) Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation, International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 13(4), 961–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2003). Applications of Argumentation Schemes. In Argumentation and Its Applications: Proceedings of the 4th OSSA Conference, ed. Hansen, H. V., Tindale, C. W., Blair, J. A., and Johnson, R. H., Windsor, Canada.Google Scholar

Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2003a). Diagramming, Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed., van Eemeren, F. H., et al. Amsterdam: Sicsat, 881–886.Google Scholar

Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2003a). Argumentation Schemes in Argument-as-Process and Argument-as-Product, Proceedings of the Conference Celebrating Informal Logic @25, eds., Blair, J. A., Farr, D., Hansen, H. V., Johnson, R. H. and Tindale, C. W. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. Windsor, Ontario. (CD-ROM.)Google Scholar

Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2007). Argumentation Schemes in Dialogue, Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground: Proceedings of OSSA. ed. Hansen, H. V., Tindale, C. W., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R., H., and Godden, D. M. Windsor, Ontario (CD-ROM.)Google Scholar

Reiter, R. (1980). A Logic for Default Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, 13(1–2), 81–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Rescher, N. (1964). Introduction to Logic. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar

Rescher, N. (1976). Plausible Reasoning. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar

Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Rescher, N. (2006). Presumption and the Practices of Tentative Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rescorla, M. (2009a). Shifting the Burden of Proof?The Philosophical Quarterly, 59, 86–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rescorla, M. (2009b). Assertion and its Constitutive Norms. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 79(1), 98–130.

Ricco, Robert, B. (2011). Individual Differences in Distinguishing Licit from Illicit Ways of Discharging the Burden of Proof, Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 616–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Safer, Jay G. (2002). Evolving Standards on Expert Witnesses. New York Law Journal 228: s4–s12.Google Scholar

Sartor, G. (1993). Defeasibility in Legal Reasoning. Rechtstheorie, 24, 281–316.Google Scholar

Weast, Schaffer v., Supreme Court of the United States, 2005. U.S. Lexis 8554, decided November 14, 2005.

Schank, R. C. (1986). Explanation Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and Creatively. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 1986.Google Scholar

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

Schank, R. C. and Riesback, C. K. (1981). Inside Computer UnderstandingHillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Schank, R. C., Kass, A., and Riesbeck, C. K. (1994). Inside Case-Based Explanation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Schum, D. A. (1994).Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning, New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

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

Sidgwick, A. (1883). Fallacies. London: Kegan Paul. (Pages cited are from a character recognition reprint by General Books, 2009.)Google Scholar

Sidgwick, A. (1884). Fallacies. New York: D. Appleton and Company.Google Scholar

Singh, P., Lin, T., Mueller, E. T.Lim, G., Perkins, T. and Zhu, W. L. (2002). Open Mind Common Sense: Knowledge Acquisition form the General Public. 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 Verlag.Google Scholar

Smets, P. (1991). Varieties of Ignorance and the Need for Well-Founded Theories. Information Sciences, 57–58, 135–144.Google Scholar

Stein, A. (2005). Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strong, J. W. (1992). McCormick on Evidence, 4th edition, St Paul, MN: West Publishing Co. [Charles Tilford McCormick (1889–1963) was the original author, but this book has been rewritten by Strong and a team of six co-authors. It is referred to as (Strong, 1992).]Google Scholar

Tang, Y. and Parsons, S. (2006). Argumentation-Based Multi-agent Dialogues for Deliberation, Proceedings of ArgMAS 2005, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 4049. Berlin: Springer, 229–244.Google Scholar

Thayer, J. B. (1898). A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar

Tillers, P. (1989). Webs of Things in the Mind: A New Science of Evidence, Michigan Law Review, 87(6), 1225–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tillers, P. and Gottfried, J. (2006). United States v. Copeland: 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. (2010). Reason’s Dark Champions: Constructive Strategies of Sophistic Argument. Columbia: The University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar

Toulmin, S. (1964). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Twining, W. (1985). Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar

Ullman-Margalit, E. (1983). On Presumption, Journal of Philosophy, 80(3), 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. (1983). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Argumentation, 1(3), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Van, Eemeren F. H. and Grootendorst, R. (2004), A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Eemeren, F. H. and Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof, Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, ed. van Eemeren, F. H. Amsterdam: SicSat, 2002, 13–28.Google Scholar

Van Gelder, T. J. (2007). The Rationale for Rationale™. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1–4), 23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Gijzel, B. and Prakken, H. (2011). Relating Carneades with Abstract Argumentation. Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), 1113–1119. Barcelona,Spain.Google Scholar

van Laar, J. A. (2003). The Dialectic of Ambiguity: A Contribution to the Study of Argumentation, Ph.D. dissertation, Groningen University, Groningen, the Netherlands.

van Laar, J. A. and Krabbe, E. C. W. (2013). The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance. Argumentation, 27, 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Verheij, B. (1996). Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. PhD diss., University of Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Verheij, B. (1999). Logic, Context and Valid Inference, Legal Knowledge Based Systems. JURIX 1999, eds. van den Herik, H. J. et al. Nijmegen: Gerard Noodt Instituut, 109–121.Google Scholar

Verheij, B. (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11(2–3), 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

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

Walton, D. (1988). Burden of Proof, Argumentation, 2(2), 233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (1989). Informal Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (1992). Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (1992a). Commitment, Types of Dialogue and Fallacies, Informal Logic, 14, 1993, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Walton, D. (1996a). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

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

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

Walton, D. (2002). Are Some Modus Ponens Arguments Deductively Invalid?, Informal Logic, 22(1), 19–46.Google Scholar

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

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

Walton, D. (2006). How to Make and Defend a Proposal in Deliberation Dialogue. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 14(3), 177–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (2006a). Argument from Appearance: A New Argumentation Scheme, Logique et Analyse, 49(195), 319–340.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (2006b). Examination Dialogue: An Argumentation Framework for Critically Questioning an Expert Opinion, Journal of Pragmatics, 38(5), 745–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Walton, D. (2007a). Metadialogues for Resolving Burden of Proof Disputes, Argumentation, 21(3), 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Walton, D. (2010). Burden of Proof in Deliberation Dialogs, Proceedings of ArgMAS 2009, ed. McBurney, P. et al., Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6057, Heidelberg, Springer, 1–22.Google Scholar

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

Walton, D., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Wyner, A., and Cartwright, D. (2010). Argumentation in the Framework of Deliberation Dialogue, Arguing Global Governance, ed. Bjola, C. and Kornprobst, M.London: Routledge, 210–230.Google Scholar

Walton, D. and Godden, D. M. (2005). The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes, The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, 18–21 May 2005, ed. David Hitchcock, Hamilton, Ontario, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 476–484.

Walton, D. and Gordon, T. F. (2005). Critical Questions in Computational Models of Legal Argument, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, IAAIL Workshop Series, ed. Dunne, P. E. and Bench-Capon, T.Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers,103–111.Google 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. (2006). Common Knowledge in Argumentation, Studies in Communication Sciences, 6 (1), 3–26.Google Scholar

Walton, D., Reed, C. and Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. and Sartor, G. (2013) Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes, Argumentation 27(2), 111–142.

Whately, R. (1846). Elements of Rhetoric, 7th edition, ed. Ehninger, D.. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Reprinted 1963.)Google Scholar

Whinery, L. H. (2001). Presumptions and their Effect, Oklahoma Law Review, 54(3), 553–571.Google Scholar

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

Wigmore, J. H. (1935). A Student’s Textbook of the Law of Evidence. Chicago: The Foundation Press.Google Scholar

Wigmore, J. H. (1940). A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, 3rd edition, vol. 1. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar

Wigmore, J. H. (1981). Evidence in Trials at Common Law, vol. 9, revised by Chadbourn, J. H.. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar

Williams, C. R. (2003). Burdens and Standards in Civil Litigation. Sydney Law Review, 9(2), 165–188.Google Scholar

Williams, G. (1977). The Evidential Burden: Some Common Misapprehensions, New Law Journal, 153, 156–158.Google Scholar

Witte, C. L., Kerwin, A., and Witte, M. H. (1991). On the Importance of Ignorance in Medical Practice and Education. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 16(4): 295–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Woods, J., Irvine, A., and Walton, D. (2000). Argument: Critical Thinking, Logic and the Fallacies. Toronto: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Wooldridge, M. J., McBurney, P., and Parsons, S. (2005): The Meta-Logic of Arguments. In Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Koenig, S., Kraus, S., Singh, M. P., and Wooldridge, M., eds., Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2005), Utrecht, The Netherlands. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, 560–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar