Technical Report of "Deductive Joint Support for Rational Unrestricted Rebuttal"

by   Marcos Cramer, et al.

In ASPIC-style structured argumentation an argument can rebut another argument by attacking its conclusion. Two ways of formalizing rebuttal have been proposed: In restricted rebuttal, the attacked conclusion must have been arrived at with a defeasible rule, whereas in unrestricted rebuttal, it may have been arrived at with a strict rule, as long as at least one of the antecedents of this strict rule was already defeasible. One systematic way of choosing between various possible definitions of a framework for structured argumentation is to study what rationality postulates are satisfied by which definition, for example whether the closure postulate holds, i.e. whether the accepted conclusions are closed under strict rules. While having some benefits, the proposal to use unrestricted rebuttal faces the problem that the closure postulate only holds for the grounded semantics but fails when other argumentation semantics are applied, whereas with restricted rebuttal the closure postulate always holds. In this paper we propose that ASPIC-style argumentation can benefit from keeping track not only of the attack relation between arguments, but also the relation of deductive joint support that holds between a set of arguments and an argument that was constructed from that set using a strict rule. By taking this deductive joint support relation into account while determining the extensions, the closure postulate holds with unrestricted rebuttal under all admissibility-based semantics. We define the semantics of deductive joint support through the flattening method.


page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4


Block Argumentation

We contemplate a higher-level bipolar abstract argumentation for non-ele...

A Comparative Study of Some Central Notions of ASPIC+ and DeLP

This paper formally compares some central notions from two well-known fo...

"Minimal defence": a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks

Dung's abstract framework for argumentation enables a study of the inter...

On resolving conflicts between arguments

Argument systems are based on the idea that one can construct arguments ...

Argument-based Belief in Topological Structures

This paper combines two studies: a topological semantics for epistemic n...

Judgment Aggregation in Multi-Agent Argumentation

Given a set of conflicting arguments, there can exist multiple plausible...

Defense semantics of argumentation: encoding reasons for accepting arguments

In this paper we show how the defense relation among abstract arguments ...

Please sign up or login with your details

Forgot password? Click here to reset