منابع مشابه
Argumentation without arguments
A well-known ambiguity in the term ‘argument’ is that of argument as an inferential structure and argument as a kind of dialogue. In the first sense, an argument is a structure with a conclusion supported by one or more grounds, which may or may not be supported by further grounds. Rules for the construction and criteria for the quality of arguments in this sense are a matter of logic. In the s...
متن کاملApproximate Arguments for Efficiency in Logical Argumentation
There are a number of frameworks for modelling argumentation in logic. They incorporate a formal representation of individual arguments and techniques for comparing conflicting arguments. A common assumption for logic-based argumentation is that an argument is a pair 〈Φ, α〉 where Φ is minimal subset of the knowledgebase such that Φ is consistent and Φ entails the claim α. Different logics are b...
متن کاملAccrual of arguments in defeasible argumentation
In this paper we address an often overlooked problem in defeasible argumentation: how do we deal with arguments that are on their own defeated, but together remain undefeated? Pollock (1991) finds this accrual of arguments a natural supposition, but then surprisingly denies its existence. We think that arguments do accrue. To handle the accrual of arguments, we introduce compound defeat of argu...
متن کاملPreference-based argumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values
In preference-based argumentation theory, an argument may be preferred to another one when, for example, it is more specific, its beliefs have a higher probability or certainty, or it promotes a higher value. In this paper we generalize Bench-Capon’s value-based argumentation theory such that arguments can promote multiple values, and preferences among values or arguments can be specified in va...
متن کاملCoalitions of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks
Bipolar argumentation frameworks enable to represent two kinds of interaction between arguments: support and conflict. In this paper, we turn a bipolar argumentation framework into a “meta-argumentation” framework where conflicts occur between sets of arguments, characterized as coalitions of supporting arguments. So, Dung’s well-known semantics can be used on this metaargumentation framework i...
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: Argumentation
سال: 2011
ISSN: 0920-427X,1572-8374
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-011-9208-9