Michael A. Müller, Srdjan Vesic, Bruno Yun
The paper introduces structured bipolar argumentation frameworks (SBAFs) that allow agents to reject arguments based on doubt and to focus on individual sentences rather than whole arguments, providing new semantics that do not require accepting all defendable arguments.
This research explores a new way to handle arguments in debates by allowing individuals to reject arguments simply due to doubt, rather than needing to accept every argument they can defend. It also shifts focus from accepting entire arguments to considering which specific claims or sentences are accepted. The paper introduces structured bipolar argumentation frameworks (SBAFs) that incorporate these ideas, offering a fresh perspective on how debates can be structured and analyzed. This approach could change how we think about argumentation by providing more flexibility and nuance in determining what is considered acceptable in a debate.
