Gradual Acceptability for Structured Argumentation in ASPIC+
Houwelingen, Leon van
MetadataShow full item record
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.
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, ...