Abstract argumentation systems

In this paper, we develop a theory of abstract argumentation systems. An abstract argumentation system is a collection of ''defeasible proofs'', called arguments, that is partially ordered by a relation expressing the difference in conclusive force. The prefix ''abstract'' indicates that the theory is concerned neither with a specification of the underlying language, nor with the development of a subtheory that explains the partial order. An unstructured language, without logical connectives such as negation, makes arguments not (pairwise) inconsistent, but (groupwise) incompatible, Incompatibility and difference in conclusive force cause defeat among arguments. The aim of the theory is to find out which arguments eventually emerge undefeated. These arguments are considered to be in force, Several results are established. The main result is that arguments that are in force are precisely those that are in the limit of a so-called complete argumentation sequence. (C) 1997 Elsevier Science B.V.