We suggest a so-called " robust " semantics for a model of argumentation which represents arguments and their interactions, called " argumentation frameworks ". We study a variety of additional definitions of acceptability of arguments; we explore the properties of these definitions; we describe their interrelationships: e.g. robust models can be… (More)
We provide a formalism for the study of dialogues, where a dialogue is a two-person game, initiated by the proponent who defends a proposed thesis. We examine several different winning criteria and several different dialogue types, where a dialogue type is determined by a set of positions, an attack relation between positions and a legal-move function. We… (More)
2 To the memory of my grandfather, Rabbi Chaim Nussbaum, Torah scholar, mathematical physicist, and a constant source of inspiration to me ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my advisor Professor Dirk Vermeir, without whom this thesis would not have come into being. It was he who provided the initial inspiration which is at the foundation of this… (More)
We present a theory of argumentation that can deal with contradiction within an argumentation framework, thus solving a problem posed in . By representing logic programs as sets of interacting arguments, we can apply our results for general argumentation frameworks to logic-programming semantics. This yields a new semantics for logic programs that… (More)
We propose a new semantics for general logic programs which stems from rst principles of logic-programming semantics. Our theory uniies previous approaches and is applicable to some useful programs which are not properly handled by existing semantics.