Dialogues and HY-arguments
نویسنده
چکیده
This paper introduces a new class called hang yourself (HY) arguments into the theory of defeasible argumentation. The novelty of such arguments is that they are inherently destructive: they cannot be used to support conclusions but only to attack other arguments. In this paper it is described what these arguments are, how they can be formalized, and what the formal consequences are of adding them to a logic for defeasible argumentation.
منابع مشابه
A First Step towards Argumentation Dialogues for Discovery
We present a formal model for two-agent discovery dialogues. The model allows agents to collectively discover a realization for a shared goal, using argumentation dialogues to exchange information. This information is in the form of rules, assumptions, and contraries of assumptions as in Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA). With dialogues, agents jointly build arguments and construct shared AB...
متن کاملTowards a General Framework for Dialogues That Accommodate Reasoning About Preferences
Argumentation theory provides foundations for distributed nonmonotonic reasoning in the form of inter-agent dialogues. However current dialogue models do not accommodate reasoning about possibly conflicting preferences used in arbitrating amongst attacking arguments. We provide a framework for persuasion dialogues that accommodates such reasoning. Agents exchange locutions that implicitly defin...
متن کاملProperties and Complexity of Some Formal Inter-agent Dialogues
This paper studies argumentation-based dialogues between agents. It defines a set of locutions by which agents can trade arguments, a set of agent attitudes which relate what arguments an agent can build and what locutions it can make, and a set of protocols by which dialogues can be carried out. The paper then considers some properties of dialogues under the protocols, in particular terminatio...
متن کاملBuilding Support-Based Opponent Models in Persuasion Dialogues
This paper deals with an approach to opponent-modelling in argumentation-based persuasion dialogues. It assumes that dialogue participants (agents) have models of their opponents’ knowledge, which can be augmented based on previous dialogues. Specifically, previous dialogues indicate relationships of support, which refer both to arguments as abstract entities and to their logical constituents. ...
متن کاملEstimating Second-Order Arguments in Dialogical Settings
This paper proposes mechanisms for agents to model other agents’ arguments, so that modelling agents can anticipate the likelihood that their interlocutors can constructs arguments in dialogues. In contrast with existing works on “opponent modelling” which treat arguments as abstract entities, the likelihood that an agent can construct an argument is derived from the likelihoods that it possess...
متن کامل