Towards Argument-based Foundation for Sceptical and Credulous Dialogue Games
نویسندگان
چکیده
We propose an argument-based foundation for dialogue games capable of modelling protocols for exchange of arguments in dialogues to prove or disprove propositions. We introduce structure into dialogue states by modelling them as dialogue trees coupled with appropriate annotation mechanisms. We model dialogue locutions as transformations between dialogue states. Viewing dialogues as proofs, we study conditions for them to be sound under the grounded semantics and the credulous semantics in argumentation. Thank to annotation mechanisms, we could handle backtracking of proponent in dialogue games.
منابع مشابه
Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning
This paper proposes an argument-based semantics for combined epistemic and practical reasoning, taking seriously the idea that in certain contexts epistemic reasoning is sceptical while practical reasoning is credulous. The new semantics combines grounded and preferred semantics. A dialectical proof theory is defined which is sound and complete with respect to this semantics and which combines ...
متن کاملCombining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning ( corrected version ) 1
This paper proposes an argument-based semantics for combined epistemic and practical reasoning, taking seriously the idea that in certain contexts epistemic reasoning is sceptical while practical reasoning is credulous. The new semantics combines grounded and preferred semantics. A dialectical proof theory is defined which is sound and complete with respect to this semantics and which combines ...
متن کاملA Dialectical Approach for Argument-Based Judgment Aggregation
The current paper provides a dialectical interpretation of the argumentation-based judgment aggregation operators of Caminada and Pigozzi. In particular, we define discussion-based proof procedures for the foundational concepts of down-admissible and up-complete. We then show how these proof procedures can be used as the basis of dialectical proof procedures for the sceptical, credulous and sup...
متن کاملTesting Credulous and Sceptical Acceptance in Small-World Networks
In this paper we test how efficiently state-of-the art solvers are capable of solving credulous and sceptical argument-acceptance for lower-order extensions. As our benchmark we consider two different random graph-models to obtain random Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with small-world characteristics: Kleinberg and Watt-Strogatz. We test two reasoners, i.e., ConArg2 and dynPARTIX, on such be...
متن کاملCredulous and Skeptical Argument Games for Complete Semantics in Conflict Resolution based Argumentation
Argumentation is one of the most popular approaches of defining a non-monotonic formalism and several argumentation based semantics were proposed for defeasible logic programs. Recently, a new approach based on notions of conflict resolutions was proposed, however with declarative semantics only. This paper gives a more procedural counterpart by developing skeptical and credulous argument games...
متن کامل