Resumo

BODANZA, Gustavo Adrián. Marcos de argumentación: Relacionando principios para la evaluación de las semánticas con juegos de justificación de argumentos. Anal. filos. [online]. 2023, vol.43, n.2, pp.223-244.  Epub 01-Nov-2023. ISSN 1851-9636.  http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.36446/af.e500.

Argumentation frameworks are defeasible argumentation models developed in the field of artificial intelligence to analyze the justification of arguments according to their interaction through attacks. Extension semantics for argumentation frameworks are criteria for sanctioning one (skeptical point of view) or several (credulous point of view) subsets of justified arguments. One way to evaluate different extension semantics is by considering whether or not they satisfy some “principles” (that is, reasonable or desirable properties). In addition to these semantics, approaches to argumentation such as dialogue games have also been proposed, as proof theories to find justified arguments through the winning strategies of a proponent, and correspondences between games and extensions have been demonstrated. As a consequence, argumentative dialogue games can be put into correspondence with the principles of extension semantics. However, those correspondences are not always explicitly available. The aim of this work is to reveal such correspondences with cases of simple games, one skeptical and two variants of credulous.

Palavras-chave : Argumentation Frameworks; Extension Semantics; Dialogue Games.

        · resumo em Espanhol     · texto em Espanhol     · Espanhol ( pdf )