Arguments About Values

Arguments are more or less persuasive depending on the values their outcomes promote and demote. This idea, closely related to Perelman’s ideas work on argumentation, has been formally modeled by Bench-Capon in his well-known Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks, based on Dung’s abstract argumentation. In this paper, the question is addressed how arguments about which values are promoted and demoted can be modeled. A proposal is made to model Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks in DefLog, a language that extends Dung’s abstract argumentation, while keeping central definitions such as preferred and stable extensions. Since DefLog allows the modeling of support of support, attack of support, support of attack, and attack of attack, it becomes possible to model arguments about whether a value is promoted or demoted in case an argument is accepted.