The Pierson vs. Post case [1] has become an important benchmark in the field of Al and Law for computational models of argumentation. In [2] Bench-Capon used Pierson vs. Post to motivate the use of values and value preferences in his theory-construction account of legal argument. And in a more a recent paper by Atkinson. Bench-Capon and McBurney [3]. it was used to illustrate a formalization of an argumentation scheme for practical reasoning. Here we offer yet another reconstruction of Pierson vs. Post, using our Carneadcs Argumentation Framework. a formal mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation based on Walton's theory of argumentation [4]. and compare it to this prior work. Carneades. named in honor of the Greek skeptic philosopher who emphasized the importance of plausible reasoning, applies proof standards [5] to determine the defensibility of arguments and the acceptability of statements oil an issue-by-issue basis.
