An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments
Argument and Computation 1 (2):93-124 (2011)
| Abstract | An abstract framework for structured arguments is presented, which instantiates Dung's ('On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n- Person Games', Artificial Intelligence , 77, 321-357) abstract argumentation frameworks. Arguments are defined as inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules: strict and defeasible rules. This naturally leads to three ways of attacking an argument: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such attacks, preferences may be used, which leads to three corresponding kinds of defeat: undermining, rebutting and undercutting defeats. The nature of the inference rules, the structure of the logical language on which they operate and the origin of the preferences are, apart from some basic assumptions, left unspecified. The resulting framework integrates work of Pollock, Vreeswijk and others on the structure of arguments and the nature of defeat and extends it in several respects. Various rationality postulates are proved to be satisfied by the framework, and several existing approaches are proved to be a special case of the framework, including assumption-based argumentation and DefLog | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,631 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMartin W. A. Caminada & Dov M. Gabbay (forthcoming). A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation. Studia Logica.
Gregor Betz (2008). Evaluating Dialectical Structures with Bayesian Methods. Synthese 163 (1):25 - 44.
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
H. Prakken & G. Sartor (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
Robert A. Kowalski & Francesca Toni (1996). Abstract Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):275-296.
Carlos Iván Chesñevar & Guillermo Ricardo Simari (2007). Modelling Inference in Argumentation Through Labelled Deduction: Formalization and Logical Properties. Logica Universalis 1 (1).
Henry Prakken (2011). Argumentation Without Arguments. Argumentation 25 (2):171-184.
Bas van Gijzel & Henry Prakken (2012). Relating Carneades with Abstract Argumentation Via the ASPIC+ Framework for Structured Argumentation. Argument and Computation 3 (1):21 - 47.
Jon Williamson, Jan-Willem Romeijn, Rolf Haenni & Gregory Wheeler (2008). Logical Relations in a Statistical Problem. In Benedikt Lowe, Jan-Willem Romeijn & Eric Pacuit (eds.), Proceedings of the Foundations of the Formal Sciences VI: Reasoning about probabilities and probabilistic reasoning. College Publications.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-08-11Total downloads18 ( #67,448 of 548,973 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,973 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
