The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation

Autores
Martínez, Diego C.; García, Alejandro Javier; Simari, Guillermo Ricardo
Año de publicación
2000
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
documento de conferencia
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
There are a lot argumentation models thal have been developed inside Artificial Intelligence. Among these models, differents formal systems of defeasible argumentation are defined, where arguments for and against a proposition are produced and evaluated to verify the acceptabilily of that proposition. In this manner, defeasible argumentation allows reasoning with incomplele and uncertain information. The development of this kind of systems has grown in the last years [SIM92, BART, KOWA96, AG97, DUNG93, DUNGLP] but no consensus has been reached yet on some issues, such as the representation of arguments, the way they interact, and the output of that interaction. Even then, the main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exist an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. Therefore, in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be "acceptable" or "justified" arguments, while others not. But this bi-valued classification" arguments is not enough, due to some situations that can be found in argumentation systems. The reasons of non-justification can be analyzed in more detail, so we can make a more specific classification the non-justified arguments. An argument of this kind can not be justified because, for instance, it has a justified defeater, it is involved in circular argumentation. In the former, we can think that the argument has been effectively defeated. In the lalter, the juslification of the argument falls in an "inconclusive" state. This is the starting point lo distinguish a third kind of arguments: those which left the dispute without any conclusion. There exist various names for this argulments, like defendibles, undecided, ambiguous and undetermined. In the rest the paper, we will call this arguments undecided. There is another reason to classify an argument as undecided. This reason is not so obvious as the one specified above, and is related to the comparison of arguments.
Eje: Aspectos teóricos de inteligencia artificial
Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI)
Materia
Ciencias Informáticas
dialectical argumentation
role of argument
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
SEDICI (UNLP)
Institución
Universidad Nacional de La Plata
OAI Identificador
oai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/22099

id SEDICI_2702d4cea91b45f5e6e7dbb2334fdd22
oai_identifier_str oai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/22099
network_acronym_str SEDICI
repository_id_str 1329
network_name_str SEDICI (UNLP)
spelling The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentationMartínez, Diego C.García, Alejandro JavierSimari, Guillermo RicardoCiencias Informáticasdialectical argumentationrole of argumentARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCEThere are a lot argumentation models thal have been developed inside Artificial Intelligence. Among these models, differents formal systems of defeasible argumentation are defined, where arguments for and against a proposition are produced and evaluated to verify the acceptabilily of that proposition. In this manner, defeasible argumentation allows reasoning with incomplele and uncertain information. The development of this kind of systems has grown in the last years [SIM92, BART, KOWA96, AG97, DUNG93, DUNGLP] but no consensus has been reached yet on some issues, such as the representation of arguments, the way they interact, and the output of that interaction. Even then, the main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exist an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. Therefore, in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be "acceptable" or "justified" arguments, while others not. But this bi-valued classification" arguments is not enough, due to some situations that can be found in argumentation systems. The reasons of non-justification can be analyzed in more detail, so we can make a more specific classification the non-justified arguments. An argument of this kind can not be justified because, for instance, it has a justified defeater, it is involved in circular argumentation. In the former, we can think that the argument has been effectively defeated. In the lalter, the juslification of the argument falls in an "inconclusive" state. This is the starting point lo distinguish a third kind of arguments: those which left the dispute without any conclusion. There exist various names for this argulments, like defendibles, undecided, ambiguous and undetermined. In the rest the paper, we will call this arguments undecided. There is another reason to classify an argument as undecided. This reason is not so obvious as the one specified above, and is related to the comparison of arguments.Eje: Aspectos teóricos de inteligencia artificialRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI)2000-05info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObjectinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionObjeto de conferenciahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_5794info:ar-repo/semantics/documentoDeConferenciaapplication/pdf32-35http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/22099enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Argentina (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5)reponame:SEDICI (UNLP)instname:Universidad Nacional de La Platainstacron:UNLP2025-09-29T10:54:53Zoai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/22099Institucionalhttp://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/Universidad públicaNo correspondehttp://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/oai/snrdalira@sedici.unlp.edu.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:13292025-09-29 10:54:53.324SEDICI (UNLP) - Universidad Nacional de La Platafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation
title The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation
spellingShingle The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation
Martínez, Diego C.
Ciencias Informáticas
dialectical argumentation
role of argument
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
title_short The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation
title_full The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation
title_fullStr The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation
title_full_unstemmed The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation
title_sort The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Martínez, Diego C.
García, Alejandro Javier
Simari, Guillermo Ricardo
author Martínez, Diego C.
author_facet Martínez, Diego C.
García, Alejandro Javier
Simari, Guillermo Ricardo
author_role author
author2 García, Alejandro Javier
Simari, Guillermo Ricardo
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Ciencias Informáticas
dialectical argumentation
role of argument
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
topic Ciencias Informáticas
dialectical argumentation
role of argument
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv There are a lot argumentation models thal have been developed inside Artificial Intelligence. Among these models, differents formal systems of defeasible argumentation are defined, where arguments for and against a proposition are produced and evaluated to verify the acceptabilily of that proposition. In this manner, defeasible argumentation allows reasoning with incomplele and uncertain information. The development of this kind of systems has grown in the last years [SIM92, BART, KOWA96, AG97, DUNG93, DUNGLP] but no consensus has been reached yet on some issues, such as the representation of arguments, the way they interact, and the output of that interaction. Even then, the main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exist an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. Therefore, in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be "acceptable" or "justified" arguments, while others not. But this bi-valued classification" arguments is not enough, due to some situations that can be found in argumentation systems. The reasons of non-justification can be analyzed in more detail, so we can make a more specific classification the non-justified arguments. An argument of this kind can not be justified because, for instance, it has a justified defeater, it is involved in circular argumentation. In the former, we can think that the argument has been effectively defeated. In the lalter, the juslification of the argument falls in an "inconclusive" state. This is the starting point lo distinguish a third kind of arguments: those which left the dispute without any conclusion. There exist various names for this argulments, like defendibles, undecided, ambiguous and undetermined. In the rest the paper, we will call this arguments undecided. There is another reason to classify an argument as undecided. This reason is not so obvious as the one specified above, and is related to the comparison of arguments.
Eje: Aspectos teóricos de inteligencia artificial
Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI)
description There are a lot argumentation models thal have been developed inside Artificial Intelligence. Among these models, differents formal systems of defeasible argumentation are defined, where arguments for and against a proposition are produced and evaluated to verify the acceptabilily of that proposition. In this manner, defeasible argumentation allows reasoning with incomplele and uncertain information. The development of this kind of systems has grown in the last years [SIM92, BART, KOWA96, AG97, DUNG93, DUNGLP] but no consensus has been reached yet on some issues, such as the representation of arguments, the way they interact, and the output of that interaction. Even then, the main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exist an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. Therefore, in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be "acceptable" or "justified" arguments, while others not. But this bi-valued classification" arguments is not enough, due to some situations that can be found in argumentation systems. The reasons of non-justification can be analyzed in more detail, so we can make a more specific classification the non-justified arguments. An argument of this kind can not be justified because, for instance, it has a justified defeater, it is involved in circular argumentation. In the former, we can think that the argument has been effectively defeated. In the lalter, the juslification of the argument falls in an "inconclusive" state. This is the starting point lo distinguish a third kind of arguments: those which left the dispute without any conclusion. There exist various names for this argulments, like defendibles, undecided, ambiguous and undetermined. In the rest the paper, we will call this arguments undecided. There is another reason to classify an argument as undecided. This reason is not so obvious as the one specified above, and is related to the comparison of arguments.
publishDate 2000
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2000-05
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObject
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Objeto de conferencia
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_5794
info:ar-repo/semantics/documentoDeConferencia
format conferenceObject
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/22099
url http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/22099
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Argentina (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5)
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Argentina (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5)
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
32-35
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:SEDICI (UNLP)
instname:Universidad Nacional de La Plata
instacron:UNLP
reponame_str SEDICI (UNLP)
collection SEDICI (UNLP)
instname_str Universidad Nacional de La Plata
instacron_str UNLP
institution UNLP
repository.name.fl_str_mv SEDICI (UNLP) - Universidad Nacional de La Plata
repository.mail.fl_str_mv alira@sedici.unlp.edu.ar
_version_ 1844615807387041792
score 13.070432