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 characterized using the minimal (well-founded) models of a meta-framework. The various definitions of acceptability of argument sets can all deal with contradiction within an argumentation framework.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
H. Jakobovits (1999) studied this question.