There are a number of frameworks for modelling argumentation in logic. They incorporate a formal representation of individual arguments and techniques for comparing conflicting arguments. A common assumption for logic-based argumentation is that an argument is a pair 〈Φ, α〉 where Φ is minimal subset of the knowledgebase such that Φ is consistent and Φ entails the claim α. Different logics provide different definitions for consistency and entailment and hence give us different options for argumentation. Classical propositional logic is an appealing option for argumentation but the computational viability of generating an argument is an issue. To better explore this issue, we use quantified Boolean formulae to characterize an approach to argumentation based on classical logic. 1

Abstract not found

With the current demonstrator, we present an implementation of formal argumentation that is not only able to evaluate an argument according to standard argumentation semantics, but is also able to engage in a discussion to defend its answer. This discussion is formal yet natural enough to be applicable in agent-to-agent as well as in agent-to-human settings. 1.

Implementation of argument-based practical reasoning Author: