Conflict diagrams for cross-examination dialogues

References

• Aristotle. 1928. On Sophistical Refutations. Loeb Library ed. Translated by E. S. Forster. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle. 1939. Topics. Loeb Library ed. Translated by E. S. Forster. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P. 1992. “Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination: The Case of a Trial for Rape.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Setting, edited by P. Drew and J. Heritage, 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dunne, P. E., S. Doutre, and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. 2005. “Discovering Inconsistency Through Examination Dialogues.” In Proceedings IJCAI-05 (International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence), Edinburgh, 1560–1561.
   Google Scholar
• Fink, J. L. 2012. “Introduction.” In The Development of Dialectic from Plato to Aristotle, edited by J.Fink, 1–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hamblin, C. L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Hamblin, C. L. 1971. “Mathematical Models of Dialogue.” Theoria 37(2): 130–155.
   Google Scholar
• Harary, F. 1972. Graph Theory. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Hohmann, H. 1989. “The Dynamics of Stasis: Classical Rhetorical Theory and Modern Legal Argumentation.” American Journal of Jurisprudence 34(1): 171–197.
   Google Scholar
• Krabbe, E. C. W. 2013. “Topical Roots of Formal Dialectic.” Argumentation 27(1): 71–87.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, E. J. 2011. Examination of Witnesses in Criminal Cases. Toronto: Thomson Reuters.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. 1979. “Activity Types and Language.” Linguistics 17(2): 365–399.
   Google Scholar
• Lorenzen, P., and K. Lorenz. 1978. Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Lubet, S. 2000. Modern Trial Advocacy. Notre Dame: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.
   Google Scholar
• Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2013. “Implicatures as Forms of Argument.” In Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy, edited by A. Capone, et al. , 203–224. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• MacCarthy, T. F. 2007. MacCarthy on Cross-Examination. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
   Google Scholar
• Mauet, T. A. 2005. Trials: Strategy, Skills, and the New Powers of Persuasion. New York: Aspen Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, L. W. 1965. “The Battle of the Experts: A New Approach to an Old Problem in Medical Testimony.” Nebraska Law Review 44(3–4): 539–598. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol44/iss3/4
   Google Scholar
• Poole, D. L., and A. K. Macworth. 2011. Artificial Intelligence: Foundations of Computational Agents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prakken, H. 2006. “Formal Systems for Persuasion Dialogue.” The Knowledge Engineering Review 21(2): 163–188.
   Google Scholar
• Prakken, H. 2011. “An Overview of Formal Models of Argumentation and their Application in Philosophy.” Studies in Logic 4(1): 65–86.
   Google Scholar
• Slomkowski, P. 1997. Aristotle's Topics. Leiden: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Laar, J. A., and E. C. W. Krabbe. 2010. “Examining the Examination Dialogue.” In Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation, edited by C. Reed and C. W. Tindale, 31–44. London: College Books.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. 2006. “Examination Dialogue: An Argumentation Framework for Critically Questioning an Expert Opinion.” Journal of Pragmatics 38(5): 745–777.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. 2008. Witness Testimony Evidence: Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence and Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. 2013. Methods of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D., and E. C. W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wehr, P. 1979. Conflict Regulation. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reed, C. A. 2006. “Representing Dialogic Argumentation." Knowledge Based Systems 19(1): 22–31.
   Google Scholar