Translations between different nonmonotonic formalisms always have been an important topic in the field, in particular to understand the knowledge-representation capabilities those formalisms offer. We provide such an investigation in terms of different semantics proposed for abstract argumentation frameworks, a nonmonotonic yet simple formalism which received increasing interest within the last decade. Although the properties of these different semantics are nowadays well understood, there are no explicit results about intertranslatability. We provide such translations wrt.

We argue, reason, cajole, and persuade -- we deploy the overtly purposive use of figures. The traditional literary rhetoric -- because we are social animals endowed with a purpose, generating aesthetic pleasure, is best known (poetry symbolic mode of thought and communication who seek and fiction, myths and prayers, songs and jokes, are highly to shape our social environment, to compete, and to cooperate. But mnemonic formulas, As rhetoricians, philosophers, and semiologists have proverbs, oral traditions, children's literature, marketing regularly noticed, some patterns of argumentation and cajolery - in short, any linguistic configuration serving purposes are more successful than others. These patterns of usage in which mental characteristics like attention, learnability, -- collectively known as rhetorical figures -- include both and recollection are at a premium - follows one syntactic and semantic patterns, but it is the schemes (e.g., or several grooves that rhetorical theorists in the classical alliteration (word-initial consonant repetition), assonance and early-modern periods identified with rhetorical figures. The repetition, incrementation, and the like), the insight that importance of rhetorical figuration in modelling aspects of motivates this project is unmistakeable. We believe incorporating rhetorical figuration rhetoric-based metrics for text summarization) into natural language systems will have profound implications.

In this paper, we propose an innovative approach for the development of social collaboration argumentation systems. These systems enable a community to collaboratively create answers to questions where many possible answers, or nuanced perspectives on a single answer, can be posited. We examine the emergence of critical reasoning via crowdsourced structured discussions, which are built upon a graph-theoretic framework populated by atomic argumentation components. Finally, we address the design of the online community to best facilitate this interaction. Our main contribution is the rationale and design of the system, which can easily be extended to build a general eLearning framework.

The strategies seem designed to mitigate guilt over the parents' role in their The GenIE Assistant is an implemented proof-of-concept child's inheritance of a genetic condition. The names used computational model of normative biomedical argument to refer to the strategies in this paper and examples of generation informed by study of a corpus of letters each are listed below. All four apply to cases of written by genetic counselors to their clients (Green et al. autosomal recessive inheritance, while only the first two 2011). The goal of the model is to generate transparent apply to cases of autosomal dominant inheritance.

This paper describes the development of a corpus of blog posts that are annotated for the presence of attempts to persuade and corresponding tactics employed in persuasive messages. We investigate the feasibility of classifying blog posts as persuasive or non-persuasive on the basis of lexical features in the text and the tactics (as provided by human annotators). Annotated tactics provide substantial assistance in classifying persuasion, particularly tactics indicating formal reasoning, deontic obligation, and discussions of possible outcomes, suggesting that learning to identify tactics may be an excellent first step to detecting attempts to persuade.

It is well known that argumentation can usefully be analysed as a distinct, if complex, type of speech act. Speech acts that form a part of argumentative discourse, and in particular, of argumentative dialogue, can be seen as anchors for the establishment of inferences between propositions in the domain of discourse. Most often, the speech acts that directly give rise to inference are implicit, but can be drawn out in analysis by consideration of the type of dialogue game being played. AI approaches to argumentation often focus solely on such inferences as the means by which persuasion can be effected – but this is in contrast with psychological and rhetorical models which have long recognised the role played by extra-logical features of the dialogical context. These ‘peripheral’ cues can not only affect persuasive effect of the logical, ‘central’ argumentation, but can override and dominate it. This paper presents a theory which allows both central and peripheral aspects of argumentation to be represented in a coherent analytical account based on the sequences of speech acts which constitute dialogues.

To encompass them, several extensions of Dung's argumentation framework (AF) [Dung, This extended research abstract describes an 1995] have been proposed, but the most general, as shown in argumentation-based approach to modelling articulated [Baroni et al., 2011], is the Argumentation Framework with decision making contexts. The approach Recursive Attacks (AF RA) formalism [Baroni et al., 2009b; encompasses a variety of argument and attack 2011]. In[Baroni et al., 2009a; 2010b] we showed how to organise schemes aimed at representing basic knowledge arguments that are instances of argument schemes in and reasoning patterns for decision support.

In this paper we take a step towards using Argumentation in Social Networksand introduce Social Abstract Argumentation Frameworks, an extension of Dung'sAbstract Argumentation Frameworks that incorporates social voting.We propose a class of semantics for these new Social Abstract Argumentation Frameworks and prove some important non-trivial properties which are crucialfor their applicability in Social Networks.

Carneades is a recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation with varying proof standards. An open question is its relation with Dung's seminal abstract approach to argumentation. In this paper the two formalisms are formally related by translating Carneades into ASPIC+, another recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation. Since ASPIC+ is defined to generate Dung-style abstract argumentation frameworks, this in effect translates Carneades graphs into abstract argumentation frameworks. It is proven that Carneades always induces a unique Dung extension, which is the same in all of Dung's semantics.

We present a new and compelling approach to the efficient solution of important computational problems that arise in the context of abstract argumentation. Our approach makes known algorithms defined for restricted fragments generally applicable, at a computational cost that scales with the distance from the fragment. Thus, in a certain sense, we gradually augment tractable fragments. Surprisingly, it turns out that some tractable fragments admit such an augmentation and that others do not. More specifically, we show that the problems of credulous and skeptical acceptance are fixed-parameter tractable when parameterized by the distance from the fragment of acyclic argumentation frameworks. Other tractable fragments such as the fragments of symmetrical and bipartite frameworks seem to prohibit an augmentation: the acceptance problems are already intractable for frameworks at distance 1 from the fragments. For our study we use a broad setting and consider several different semantics. For the algorithmic results we utilize recent advances in fixed-parameter tractability.