Argumentation Support Tool with Reliability-Based Argumentation Framework

Abstract

In legal debates, it is a matter of importance whether one’s own argument is accepted or not. For this, we propose evaluation method for calculating the acceptability of arguments, and a tool developed based on the measures. This method is called reliability-based argumentation framework (RAFs), extended from argumentation framework, seeking for multivalued dialectical validities of arguments reliable to some extent. The modular reliability-based argumentation framework (MRAF) based on RAFs is able to integrate the RAF semantics in every module. This leads to an over-all valuation of the acceptability of argumentations including several local arguments. The argumentation-support tool can represent the utterance logs of those who join an debate, the argumentation diagram its users made, and the argumentation framework converted from this, contributing to the intuitive comprehension of the logical structures of arguments and their acceptability. This tool also enables represented argumentation framework to be converted into modular structures of local AFs, leading to an overall valuation of the acceptability of arguments.