Dung intended his abstract argument frameworks to be used for modeling a particular form of human argumentation, where arguments attack each other and are evaluated following the principle summarized by “The one who has the last word laughs best.” However this form does not fit a wide class of arguments, which is arguably more prototypical and common in human argumentation, namely arguments where pros and cons are balanced to choose among alternative options. Here we present a formal model of structured argument which generalizes Dung abstract argumentation frameworks to also handle balancing. Unlike most other models of structured argument, this model does not map structured arguments to abstract arguments. Rather it generalizes abstract argumentation frameworks, allowing them to be simulated using structured arguments. The model can handle cumulative arguments (“accrual”) without causing an exponential blowup in the number of arguments and has been fully implemented in Version 4 of the Carneades Argumentation System.
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
Tel.: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300 email@example.com
(Corporate matters and books only) IOS Press c/o Accucoms US, Inc.
For North America Sales and Customer Service
West Point Commons
Lansdale PA 19446
Tel.: +1 866 855 8967
Fax: +1 215 660 5042 firstname.lastname@example.org