Home

About

Advanced Search

Browse by Discipline

Scientific Societies

E-print Alerts

Add E-prints

E-print Network
FAQHELPSITE MAPCONTACT US


  Advanced Search  

 
Abstract Argumentation and Values Trevor Bench-Capon and Katie Atkinson
 

Summary: Chapter 3
Abstract Argumentation and Values
Trevor Bench-Capon and Katie Atkinson
1 Introduction
Abstract argumentation frameworks, as described in Chapter 2, are directed towards
determining whether a claim that some statement is true can be coherently main-
tained in the context of a set of conflicting arguments. For example, if we use
preferred semantics, that an argument is a member of all preferred extensions es-
tablishes that its claim must be accepted as true, and membership of at least one
preferred extension shows that the claim is at least tenable. In consequence, that
admissible sets of arguments are conflict free is an important requirement under all
the various semantics.
For many common cases of argument, however, this is not appropriate: two ar-
guments can conflict, and yet both be accepted. For an example suppose that Trevor
and Katie need to travel to Paris for a conference. Trevor offers the argument "we
should travel by plane because it is quickest". Katie replies with the argument "we
should travel by train because it is much pleasanter". Trevor and Katie may con-
tinue to disagree as to how to travel, but they cannot deny each other's arguments.
The conclusion will be something like "we should travel by train because it is much
pleasanter, even though travelling by plane is quicker". The point concerns what

  

Source: Atkinson, Katie - Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool

 

Collections: Computer Technologies and Information Sciences