Witness Impeachment in Cross-Examination Using Ad Hominem Argumentation

Aristotle (1939). Topics (trans. E. S. Forster). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google 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, ed. P. Besnard, S. Doutre and A. Hunter. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 49-60.Search in Google Scholar

Budzynska, K. and Reed, C. (2012). The Structure of Ad Hominem Dialogues. Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2012. ed. B. Verheij, S. Szeider and S. Woltran. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 410-421 (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 245).Search in Google Scholar

Budzynska, K. and Witek, M. (2014). Non-Inferential Aspects of Ad Hominem and Ad Baculum, Argumentation, 28 (3), 301-315.10.1007/s10503-014-9322-6Search in Google Scholar

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

Gordon, T. F. and Walton, D. (2009). Legal Reasoning with Argumentation Schemes, 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ed. Carole D. Hafner, New York, Association for Computing Machinery, 2009, 137-146.Search in Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation, Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, ed. P. Cole and J. L. Morgan. New York: Academic Press, 1975, 43-58.Search in Google Scholar

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

Hamblin, C. L. (1971). Mathematical Models of Dialogue. Theoria, 37(2), 130-155.10.1111/j.1755-2567.1971.tb00065.xOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

Harary, F. (1972). Graph Theory. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.Search in Google Scholar

Krabbe, E. C. W. (2013). Topical Roots of Formal Dialectic, Argumentation, 27(1), 71-87.10.1007/s10503-012-9278-3Search in Google Scholar

Levy, E. J. (2011). Examination of Witnesses in Criminal Cases. Toronto: Thomson Reuters.Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, F. and Walton, D. (2012). Character Attacks as Complex Strategies of Legal Argumentation, International Journal of Law, Language and Discourse, 2(3), 59-117.10.1111/j.1467-9337.2012.00514.xSearch in Google Scholar

F. Macagno and D. Walton (2013). Implicatures as Forms of Argument, Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy, ed. A. Capone et al. Berlin: Springer, 203-224.Search in Google Scholar

MacCarthy, T. F. (2007). MacCarthy on Cross-Examination. Chicago: American Bar Association.Search in Google Scholar

MacCarthy, T. F., MacCarthy, S. P. and MacCarthy, T. F., Honorable (2016). MacCarthy on Impeachment. Chicago: American Bar Association, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

Mauet, T. A. (2005). Trials: Strategy, Skills, and the New Powers of Persuasion. New York: Aspen Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Poole, D. L. and Macworth, A. K. (2011). Artificial Intelligence: Foundations of Computational Agents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Prakken, H. (2010). An Abstract Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments. Argument and Computation 1, 93-124.10.1080/19462160903564592Search in Google Scholar

Prakken, H. (2011). An Overview of Formal models of Argumentation and their Application in Philosophy. Studies in Logic, 4(1), (2011): 65-86. http://www.cs.uu.nl/groups/IS/archive/henry/china11.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Reed, C. (2011). Implicit Speech Acts Are Ubiquitous. Why? They Join the Dots, Zenker, F. (ed.). Argument Cultures: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18-21, 2011. Windsor, ON (CD ROM), 1-15.Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, R. (1953). Plato’s Earlier Dialectic, 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar

Slomkowski, P. (1997). Aristotle’s Topics, Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004320994Search in Google Scholar

Verheij, B. (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 167-195.10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046008.49443.36Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Verheij, B. (2005). Virtual Arguments. On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.10.1007/978-90-6704-661-9Search in Google Scholar

Walton, D. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Search in Google Scholar

Walton, D. (2018). Conflict Diagrams for Cross-examination Dialogues, Argumentation and Advocacy, 4(3), 199-218.10.1080/00028533.2018.1442977Search in Google Scholar

Walton, D., and E. C. W. Krabbe. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Walton, D. and Gordon, T. F. (2015). Formalizing Informal Logic, Informal Logic, 35(4), 2015, 508-538.10.22329/il.v35i4.4335Search in Google Scholar

Walton, D. and Gordon, T. F. (2017). Argument Invention with the Carneades Argumentation System, ScriptED: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society, 14(2), 2017, 168-207.10.2966/scrip.140217.168Search in Google Scholar

Walton, D., Reed, C. andMacagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802034Search in Google Scholar

Wehr, P. (1979). Conflict Regulation. Boulder: Westview Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wellman, F. L. (1919). The Art of Cross-Examination, 2nd ed. New York & London: The Macmillan Company.Search in Google Scholar

Reed, C. (2011). Implicit Speech Acts Are Ubiquitous. Why? They Join the Dots, Zenker, F. (ed.). Argument Cultures: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18-21, 2011. Windsor, ON (CD ROM), 1-15.Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, R. (1953). Plato’s Earlier Dialectic, 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar

Slomkowski, P. (1997). Aristotle’s Topics, Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004320994Search in Google Scholar

Verheij, B. (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 167-195.10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046008.49443.36Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Verheij, B. (2005). Virtual Arguments. On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.10.1007/978-90-6704-661-9Search in Google Scholar

Walton, D. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Search in Google Scholar

Walton, D. (2018). Conflict Diagrams for Cross-examination Dialogues, Argumentation and Advocacy, 4(3), 199-218.10.1080/00028533.2018.1442977Search in Google Scholar

Walton, D., and E. C. W. Krabbe. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Walton, D. and Gordon, T. F. (2015). Formalizing Informal Logic, Informal Logic, 35(4), 2015, 508-538.10.22329/il.v35i4.4335Search in Google Scholar

Walton, D. and Gordon, T. F. (2017). Argument Invention with the Carneades Argumentation System, ScriptED: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society, 14(2), 2017, 168-207.10.2966/scrip.140217.168Search in Google Scholar

Walton, D., Reed, C. andMacagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802034Search in Google Scholar

Wehr, P. (1979). Conflict Regulation. Boulder: Westview Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wellman, F. L. (1919). The Art of Cross-Examination, 2nd ed. New York & London: The Macmillan Company.Search in Google Scholar