Handling controversial arguments
نویسندگان
چکیده
We present two prudent semantics within Dung’s theory of argumentation. They are based on two new notions of extension, referred to as p-extension and c-extension. Two arguments cannot belong to the same p-extension whenever one of them attacks indirectly the other one. Two arguments cannot belong to the same c-extension whenever one of them indirectly attacks a third argument while the other one indirectly defends the third. We argue that our semantics lead to a better handling of controversial arguments than Dung’s ones. We compare the prudent inference relations induced by our semantics w.r.t. cautiousness; we also compare them with the inference relations induced by Dung’s semantics.
منابع مشابه
Inference from Controversial Arguments
We present new careful semantics within Dung’s theory of argumentation. Under such careful semantics, two arguments cannot belong to the same extension whenever one of them indirectly attacks a third argument while the other one indirectly defends the third. We argue that our semantics lead to a better handling of controversial arguments than Dung’s ones in some settings. We compare the careful...
متن کاملHandling controversial arguments by matrix
We introduce matrix and its block to the Dung's theory of argumentation framework. It is showed that each argumentation framework has a matrix representation, and the indirect attack relation and indirect defence relation can be determined by computing the matrix. This provide a powerful mathematics way to find out the " controversial arguments " and deal with them in an argumentation framework...
متن کاملچالشهای اخلاقی حمایت از روشهای علم پزشکی در حقوق اختراعات
Human inventions and innovations are generally subject to legal protection but some of these innovations are not subject to legal protection. Medical methods are one of the controversial exceptions of patentability of inventions and opponents and proponents of patent ability of medical methods support propound several reasons to prove their theory. While major arguments of proponents are justif...
متن کاملHandling Structural Divergences and Recovering Dropped Arguments in a Korean/english Machine Translation System ?
This paper describes an approach for handling structural divergences and recovering dropped arguments in an implemented Korean to English machine translation system. The approach relies on canonical predicate-argument structures (or dependency structures), which provide a suitable pivot representation for the handling of structural divergences and the recovery of dropped arguments. It can also ...
متن کاملHandling Inconsistency with Preference-Based Argumentation
Argumentation is a promising approach for handling inconsistent knowledge bases, based on the justification of plausible conclusions by arguments. Due to inconsistency, arguments may be attacked by counterarguments. The problem is thus to evaluate the arguments in order to select the most acceptable ones. The aim of this paper is to make a bridge between the argumentation-based and the coherenc...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics
دوره 19 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2009