An argumentation semantics for rational human evaluation of arguments.

ABSTRACT: In abstract argumentation theory, many argumentation semantics have been proposed for evaluating argumentation frameworks. This article is based on the following research question: Which semantics corresponds well to what humans consider a rational judgment on the acceptability of arguments? There are two systematic ways to approach this research question: A normative perspective is provided by the principle-based approach, in which semantics are evaluated based on their satisfaction of various normatively desirable principles. A descriptive perspective is provided by the empirical approach, in which cognitive studies are conducted to determine which semantics best predicts human judgments about arguments. In this article, we combine both approaches to motivate a new argumentation semantic

SUBMITTER: Cramer M 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10076807 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature