منابع مشابه
Arguing with Sets of Attacking Arguments
One of the most widely studied systems of argumentation is the one described by Dung in a paper from 1995. Unfortunately, this framework does not allow for joint attacks on arguments, which we argue must be required of any truly abstract argumentation framework. A few frameworks can be said to allow for such interactions among arguments, but for various reasons we believe that these are inadequ...
متن کاملDiagonal arguments and fixed points
A universal schema for diagonalization was popularized by N.S. Yanofsky (2003), based on a pioneering work of F.W. Lawvere (1969), in which the existence of a (diagonolized-out and contradictory) object implies the existence of a fixed-point for a certain function. It was shown that many self-referential paradoxes and diagonally proved theorems can fit in that schema. Here, we fi...
متن کاملA Generalization of Dung's Abstract Framework for Argumentation: Arguing with Sets of Attacking Arguments
One of the most widely studied systems of argumentation is the one described by Dung in a paper from 1995. Unfortunately, this framework does not allow for joint attacks on arguments, which we argue must be required of any truly abstract argumentation framework. A few frameworks can be said to allow for such interactions among arguments, but for various reasons we believe that these are inadequ...
متن کاملAnalyzing Disagreements
We address the problem of distinguishing between two sources of disagreement in annotations: genuine subjectivity and slip of attention. The latter is especially likely when the classification task has a default class, as in tasks where annotators need to find instances of the phenomenon of interest, such as in a metaphor detection task discussed here. We apply and extend a data analysis techni...
متن کاملCivilised arguing.
ink or electronic) should not argue as antagonists, or even as advocates, as this can sour the atmosphere and lead to mere adversarial point scoring. ‘In quarrelling the truth is always lost’1. It is better to argue more as judges do, aiming to be fair, slowly edging towards as much agreement as possible, rather than each fighting his or her own corner. Trust each other’s sincerity. There is no...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Informal Logic
سال: 1992
ISSN: 0824-2577,0824-2577
DOI: 10.22329/il.v14i2.2537