The same, similar, or just completely different? equivalence for argumentation in light of logic

Abstract

In recent years, argumentation theory and logic have moved closer to each other, a development due in large part to Dung's mathematically precise definition of an abstract argumentation framework as a digraph and the intuitively plausible semantics for argumentation that can be formulated using this structure. This work raises some questions, however, regarding the relationship between an abstract argumentation framework-a directed graph-and the underlying argumentative structure that it is taken to represent. One such question, which we study in this paper, is the question of when two arguments should be considered the same, a question which has been surprisingly controversial, and which also, as we will demonstrate, gives rise to interesting technical results and future challenges. © 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.