CaSAPI: a system for credulous and sceptical argumentation

We present the CaSAPI system, implementing (a generalisation of) three existing computational mechanisms [8–10] for determining argumentatively whether potential beliefs can be deemed to be acceptable and, if so, for computing supports for them. These mechanisms are defined in terms of dialectical disputes amongst two fictional agents: a proponent agent, eager to determine the acceptability of the beliefs, and an opponent agent, trying to undermine the existence of an acceptable support for the beliefs, by finding attacks against it that the proponent needs to counter-attack in turn. The three mechanisms differ in the level of scepticism of the proponent agent and are defined for (flat) assumption-based argumentation frameworks [3]. Thus, they can serve as decision-making mechanisms for all instances of these frameworks. In this paper we show how they can be used for logic programming, legal reasoning, practical reasoning, and agent reasoning.