Representation of formal dispute with a standing order

Abstract. Computational dialectics is concerned with the formal representation of argument and dispute. The field emerged from developments in philosophy, artificial intelligence and legal theory. Its goal is to suggest algorithms, procedures and protocols to investigate the tenability of logical claims, on the basis of information in the form of rules and cases. Currently, the field slowly converges to the opinion that dispute is the most fair and effective way to investigate claims. The basic assumption of this field is that dispute is the most fair and effective way to investigate claims. The definition of a formal dispute varies throughout the literature, but is considered not to vary within one and the same logical system. In this paper it is shown that parts of the definition of a dispute may change within one logical system. To this end, the notion of partial protocol specification (PPS) is introduced. A PPS is a part of the definition of the protocol. A modification to the protocol, in the form of a PPS, can be put forward, disputed, established and incorporated as an effective ‘point of order’. The paper demonstrates the existence of self-undermining PPSs, it discusses the relevance of PPSs for dialectical models of legal argument and concludes with a description of how PPSs can be built into existing argumentation systems.