Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks, Modal Logic and Semantic Paradoxes

Abstract

Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAF) are a natural extension of Dung’s Argumentation Frameworks (AF) where a relation of support between arguments is added to the standard attack relation. Despite their interest, BAF present several difficulties and their semantics are quite complex. This paper provides a definition of semantic concepts for BAF in terms of fixpoints of the functions of neutrality and defense, thus preserving most of the fundamental properties of Dung’s AF. From this angle it becomes easy to show that propositional dynamic logic provides an adequate language to talk about BAF. Finally, we illustrate how this framework allows to encode the structure of the referential discourse involved in semantic paradoxes such as the Liar. It turns out that such paradoxes can be seen as BAF without a stable extension.