Abstract
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 ****** ,*** *** where *** is a minimal subset of the knowledgebase such that *** is consistent and *** entails the claim *** . Different logics provide different definitions for consistency and entailment and hence give us different options for argumentation. An appealing option is classical first-order logic which can express much more complex knowledge than possible with defeasible or classical propositional logics. However the computational viability of using classical first-order logic is an issue. Here we address this issue by using the notion of a connection graph and resolution with unification. We provide a theoretical framework and algorithm for this, together with some theoretical results.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
