Gradual Acceptability for Structured Argumentation in ASPIC+
Summary
Argumentation is a reasoning approach in Artificial Intelligence, which is approached
by extension-based methods as well as gradual approaches. In the
literature one is often vague about the type of argument strength that is studied
and it is mostly approached avoiding structured argumentation. Thereby, assumptions
are made on abstract level that do not always hold at the structural
level.
In this work we answer the question how a semantics for dialectical argument
strength in structured approaches to argumentation can be developed and evaluated.
To that end two new semantics will be proposed using ASPIC+, one
for argumentation frameworks with only attacks, one for argumentation frameworks
with only supports. Both of these semantics will be evaluated by the
postulates proposed in the literature as well as by postulates proposed in this
work. Existing semantics will also be evaluated by the new postulates.
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
David Hume on the cosmological argument and the argument from design in the Dialogues: a systematic exposition
Hehenkamp, J.B.M. (2015)In the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779), published a few years after his death, David Hume discusses the cosmological argument and the argument from design in dialogue form, allegedly because the subject matter ... -
Why the no-miracles argument fails as an ultimate argument against scientific anti-realism
Hooijdonk, B. van (2020) -
The Zombie Argument - a discussion of the soundness of the zombie argument
Pals, G.H. (2016)In this thesis I inquire whether the zombie-argument is sound, and thus whether it refutes physicalism of the mind. I do so by investigating the two controversial premises of the argument, namely (P1) zombies are conceivable, ...