Defending arguments with different criteria in extension semantics and dialogue games

BODANZA, GUSTAVO ADRIÁN

Buenos Aires

Taller; Logic Workshop - A Tribute to Horacio Arló-Costa; 2012

Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico (SADAF)

Argumentation is a process in which arguments for and against some claim are put forward by contending parties. A very abstract characterization of argumentation was introduced by Dung [5], who formalizes an argumentation framework as a tuple AF = where A is a ser of abstract entities called ´arguments´ and R is an attack relation among elements of A. The main problem is the determination of which arguments can ?survive? in the framework. The usual way is by defining an extension semantics Sem which yields, for every argumentation framework AF, a family of extensions, i.e. a class of subsets of arguments that are acceptable in the framework. In this talk we discuss some principles concerning extension semantics and propose dialogue games to capture them.