An abstract argumentation framework is a commonly used formalism to provide a static representation of a dialogue. However, the order of enunciation of the arguments in an argumentative dialogue is very important and can affect the outcome of this dialogue. In this paper, we propose a new framework for modelling abstract argumentation graphs, a model that incorporates the order of enunciation of arguments. By taking this order into account, we have the means to deduce a unique outcome for each dialogue, called an extension. We also establish several properties, such as termination and correctness, and discuss two notions of completeness. In particular, we propose a modification of the previous transformation based on a "last enunciated last updated" strategy, which verifies the second form of completeness.

Although moral responsibility is not circumscribed by causality, they are both closely intermixed. Furthermore, rationally understanding the evolution of the physical world is inherently linked with the idea of causality. Thus, the decision-making applications based on automated planning inevitably have to deal with causality, especially if they consider imputability aspects or integrate references to ethical norms. The many debates around causation in the last decades have shown how complex this notion is and thus, how difficult is its integration with planning. As a result, much of the work in computational ethics relegates causality to the background, despite the considerations stated above. This paper's contribution is to provide a complete and sound translation into logic programming from an actual causation definition suitable for action languages, this definition is a formalisation of Wright's NESS test. The obtained logic program allows to deal with complex causal relations. In addition to enabling agents to reason about causality, this contribution specifically enables the computational ethics domain to handle situations that were previously out of reach. In a context where ethical considerations in decision-making are increasingly important, advances in computational ethics can greatly benefit the entire AI community.

Belief revision games (BRGs) are concerned with the dynamics of the beliefs of a group of communicating agents. BRGs are "zero-player" games where at each step every agent revises her own beliefs by taking account for the beliefs of her acquaintances. Each agent is associated with a belief state defined on some finite propositional language. We provide a general definition for such games where each agent has her own revision policy, and show that the belief sequences of agents can always be finitely characterized. We then define a set of revision policies based on belief merging operators. We point out a set of appealing properties for BRGs and investigate the extent to which these properties are satisfied by the merging-based policies under consideration.