• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Structured Argumentation:Restricted Rebut vs.Unrestricted Rebut*

    2018-10-16 06:18:46ZheYu
    邏輯學(xué)研究 2018年3期
    關(guān)鍵詞:高富帥

    Zhe Yu

    Department of Philosophy,Zhejiang University Center for the Study of Language and Cognition,Zhejiang University zheyu@zju.edu.cn

    Kang Xu

    Zhejiang University of Water Resources and Electric Power xukanguuu@163.com

    Beishui Liao

    Department of Philosophy,Zhejiang University Center for the Study of Language and Cognition,Zhejiang University baiseliao@zju.edu.cn

    Abstract.Inrecent years,formal argument ationhasbeen an increasingly active research topic in the field of logic and artificial intelligence.One of its aims is to bridge the gap between human reasoning and computer-based reasoning.For this purpose,several argumentation formalisms have recently been proposed,including ABA,ASPIC+,ASPIC?,etc.Different design choices are implemented in different systems.This paper focuses on two opposite design choices,namely restricted rebut versus unrestricted rebut,and carries out an empirical research.The empirical results show that unrestricted rebut is more likely to be accepted by human users.It suggests that the current formalisms should be improved and that a better way to combine naturalness and rationality is needed.

    1 Introduction

    Human reasoning is usually subjective and defeasible.For instance,in common sense reasoning,knowledge used as premises is often uncertain and incomplete.So,different arguments based on this kind of knowledge are often in conflict,and cannot be accepted all together.When confronted with a set of conflicting arguments,agents evaluate them according to their preferences and principles that are usually subjective.Meanwhile,when new information arrives,some arguments and the conclusions they support may be withdrawn.So,the reasoning process is intrinsically dynamic and defeasible.Since traditional computer-based reasoning is typically based on classical monotonic logic which can only deal with certain and complete knowledge,it does not match the properties of human reasoning.In oder to cope with this problem,a series of nonmonotonic formalisms have been proposed since 1980s,including default logic([2]),circumscription([17]),auto-epistemic logic([16]),etc.In recent years,formal argumentation as a nonmonotonic formalism is gaining momentum,thanks to the fact that human reasoning can be naturally modeled as arguments and their interactions.More specifically,since human reasoning is typically realized by exchanging and evaluating arguments,it is natural to model formal models based on this mechanism.

    In the existing literature,there are basically two lines of work in argumentation studies:informal argumentation and formal argumentation.On one hand,informal argumentation attaches attention to modeling and evaluating arguments in natural argumentative discourse with the help of informal tools like argument schemes,e.g.the Pragma-dialectics by F.van Eemeren and R.Grootendorst([22]),the New Dialectic by D.Walton([23]),etc.In recent years,there are also a lot of Chinese researchers working on this topic,including M.Xiong([25]),R.Jin([13]),Y.Xie([24]),et al.On the other hand,formal argumentation is a nonmonotonic formalism to model various kinds of reasoning,from epistemic reasoning to practical reasoning,from individual reasoning to multi-agent reasoning,etc.In the area of formal argumentation,there are two main research directions:abstract argumentation([1,15])and structured argumentation([10,12,18,19,9,21]).The former is mainly about handling conflicts between a set of conflicting arguments to obtain sets of arguments that can be accepted together,while the latter focuses on how to construct arguments from underlying knowledge base and to identify defeat relations between arguments,such that the conclusions obtained from an argumentation system satisfy somerationality postulates([7]),which guarantee that the outcome of the system is logically reasonable.

    In this paper,we focus on structured argumentation.A structured argumentation system is mainly composed of the following parts:a logical language to represent underlying knowledge,a definition of an argument,a definition of the conflict/defeat relation between arguments,and an approach to evaluate the status of arguments.In all these parts,there are different design choices,which may affect the conclusions of an argumentation system.For instance,when arguments are in conflict,under which conditions an argument rebut another argument?In existing literature,there are two different optionscalledrestrictedrebutandunrestrictedrebut.([4,7,5,6])Theformeronlyallowsa rebutting on an argument whose top rule is defeasible,while the latter allows a rebutting on all defeasible arguments,i.e.,the arguments contain at least one defeasible rule,no matter where the defeasible rule is located.The intuition behind unrestricted rebut is that a conclusion is defeasible if and only if it has been derived using at least one defeasible rule.The intuition behind restricted rebut is that in order to argue against a particular derivation,one has to argue against its premises.([4])Now,an important issue is that adopting different design choices may lead to different problems.As observed in[19]and[6],a formalism with unrestricted rebuts may violate some rationality postulates,while it is not natural in many cases to adopt restricted rebut when considering human reasoning.

    Given the pros and cons of adopting restricted rebut and unrestricted rebut,the goal of this paper is not to develop a new system to cope with those problems,but to analyze two systems using different definitions of rebutting,and conduct an empirical study.We expect that the empirical results can provide some hints for future development of structured argumentation formalisms.

    The initial idea of the present study was first presented on MIREL workshop 20161Workshop on MIning and REasoning with Legal texts-December 14th,2016-Nice(France)..A revised questionnaire survey was carried out then.In the current survey,we modified some expressions of the questions to make them more precise and clearer.An additional question is added for each case to get more parameters.Furthermore,we increase the number of subjects,and add one more case which represent a generalized version of unrestricted rebut in the questionnaire.Moreover,each part of the paper has all been extended.

    The structure of this paper is as follows.In Section2,we provide some basic notions of formal argumentation,and analyze the pros and cons of applying restricted rebut and unrestricted rebut.In Section 3,we introduce an empirical study and its results.In Section 4,we conclude the paper with a discussion.

    2 Formal Argumentation Systems:Restricted Rebut vs.Unrestricted Rebut

    In the current section,we introduce some notions concerning formal argumentation,and analyze the pros and cons of applying restricted rebut and unrestricted rebut in a formal argumentation system.In general,a formal argumentation system can be illustrated in Fig.1(taken from[14]),which is composed of a knowledge base representing by a(logical)language,a set of arguments constructed from this knowledge,a set of conflict/defeat relation between arguments,and an approach to evaluate the status of arguments.A pair of a set of arguments and a set of defeat relation(also called attack relation)between arguments is called an argumentation framework.The evaluation of status of arguments can be done at an abstract level where the structures of arguments and the origins of attack relation can be ignored.After evaluation,a set of arguments that are acceptable together is called an extension of the argumentation framework.For each extension of arguments,the associated set of conclusions is the output of the system.

    To model a formal argumentation system,one important issue is to guarantee that the outcome of the system satisfies some rationality postulates and human reasoning intuitions.However,it may be the case that when some postulates/intuitions are satisfied,others are violated.In this section,we introduce two such systems(i.e.,ASPIC+andASPIC?)and analyze their pros and cons.2Apart from ASPIC+and ASPIC?,there are also other structured argumentation systems(like DeLP,ABA and deductive argumentation)where the issue of restricted versus unrestricted rebut plays a role.Readers are referred to[3]for more information.

    2.1 ASPIC+and ASPIC?

    TheASPIC+andASPIC?frameworks originate from the EuropeanASPICproject,and are formulated in a series papers,including[5],[18]and[20],etc.In all these for-malisms,arguments are constructed from a set of strict rules and defeasible rules,as well as a set of premises.One basic difference betweenASPIC+andASPIC?is that the former only allows a rebutting on an argument whose top rule is defeasible,while the latter allows a rebutting on all defeasible arguments.In the following,we provide the definitions ofASPIC+,while the corresponding definitions ofASPIC?are omitted.

    Figure 1:A typical working mechanism of an argumentation system

    InASPIC+,the main components are a logical languageLunder negation?or a more general notion of conflict(i.e.contrariness),two sets of inference rules,and a knowledge base.Firstly,a triple called an argumentation system consists of three parts:a languageL,a set of rules,and a partial function mapping some rules to distinct names,which are also elements inL.In terms of[20],we have the following definition.

    Definition 1An argumentation system is a tupleAS=(L,R,n),where

    ·Lis a logical language closed under negation“?”;

    ·R=Rs∪Rdis a set of strict(Rs)and defeasible(Rd)inference rules of the formφ1,...,φn→φandφ1,...,φn?φrespectively(whereφiandφare meta-variables raging over wff inL),andRs∩Rd=?;

    ·n is a partial function such that n:Rd→L.

    We writeψ=?φwhenψ=?φorφ=?ψ.

    Secondly,the premises of an argument are from a knowledge base,which can be defined as follows.([20])

    Definition 2A knowledge base in anAS=(L,R,n)is a setK?Lconsisting of two disjoint subsetsKn(the axioms)andKp(the ordinary premises).

    The combination of an argumentation system and a knowledge base is called an argumentation theory,denotedAT=(AS,K).

    GivenanAT,arguments can be defined by chaining inference rules fromASintoinference trees.Letall the formulas ofKused to build an argumentαdenoted byPrem(α),the conclusion ofαdenoted byConc(α),all the sub-arguments ofαdenoted bySub(α),all the defeasible rules ofαdenoted byDefRules(α)and the last rule ofαdenoted byTopRule(α).Formally,we have the following definition.([20])

    Definition 3An argumentαon the basis of an argumentation system(L,R,n)and a knowledge baseK?Lis defined as:

    1.φifφ∈Kwith:Prem(α)={φ},Conc(α)=φ,Sub(α)={φ},DefRules(α)=?,TopRule(α)=undefined.

    2.α1,...,αn→ψifα1,...,αn(n≥1)are arguments such that there exists a strict ruleConc(α1),...,Conc(αn)→ψinRswith:Prem(α)=Prem(α1)∪...∪Prem(αn);Conc(α)=ψ;Sub(α)=Sub(α1)∪...∪Sub(αn)∪{α};DefRules(α)=DefRules(α1)∪...∪DefRules(αn);TopRule(α)=Conc(α1)...Conc(αn)→ψ.

    3.α1,...,αn?ψifα1,...,αn(n≥1)are arguments such that there exists a defeasibleruleConc(α1),...,Conc(αn)?ψinRdwith:Prem(α)=Prem(α1)∪...∪Prem(αn);Conc(α)=ψ;Sub(α)=Sub(α1)∪...∪Sub(αn)∪{α};DefRules(α)=DefRules(α1)∪...∪DefRules(αn)∪{Conc(α1),...,Conc(αn)?ψ};TopRule(α)=Conc(α1)...Conc(αn)?ψ.

    Foranyargumentα,wesayαisstrictifandonlyifDefRules(α)=?,andPrem(α)∩Kp=?;defeasibleifandonlyifDefRules(α)?=?,orPrem(α)∩Kp?=?.Givenasetof argumentsE,we useConcs(E)={Conc(α)|α∈E}to denote the set of conclusions supported byE.

    Based on the above formal definitions,let us consider the following example.

    Example 1Letα,βbe two arguments as follows:

    ·α:Tom is probably a bachelor because he goes to pubs frequently;

    ·β:Tom is probably married because he wears a ring.Since someone who is married is not a bachelor,Tom is not a bachelor.

    LetL={r,m,b,p,?b,?m},wherer,m,b,pdenote ‘wear a ring’,‘be married’,‘be a bachelor’and ‘go to pub frequently’respectively.

    Rs={m→?b}∪{b→?m}3Rsis assumed to be closed under transposition in ASPIC+/?([19,5]),thus we have“b→ ?m”transposed from“m → ?b”.,Rd={p?b;r?m},andK={p,r}.Then,we may construct the following arguments:

    As illustrated by the above example,not all arguments can be accepted together.For instance,sinceαandβhave contradictory conclusions,they can not be accepted at the same time.So,given a set of arguments,before their status are evaluated,all the conflicts between them should be identified.In terms of[20],three kinds of conflict between arguments are defined as follows.

    Definition 4Letαandβbe arguments.

    1.αundercutsβonβ′if and only ifConc(α)=?n(r)4‘n(r)’means that rule r is applicable.for someβ′∈Sub(β)such thatTopRule(β′)=rwherer∈Rd;

    2.α(restrictively)rebutsβonβ′if and only ifConc(α)=?Conc(β′)for someβ′∈Sub(β),andTopRule(β′)∈Rd;

    3.αunderminesβonφif and only ifConc(α)=?φfor any ordinary premiseφofβ.

    Note that in Definition 4,the notion of‘rebut’is restricted.For unrestricted rebut,the second item of Definition 4 is modified to the following:

    2.′αunrestrictively rebutsβonβ′if and only ifβ′is defeasible andConc(α)=?Conc(β′)for someβ′∈Sub(β).

    Then,it is said that an argumentαattacks an argumentβif and only if(1)αrestrictively(unrestrictively)rebutsβ,or(2)αundercutsβ,or(3)αunderminesβ.Meanwhile,whether an attack fromαtoβ(on its sub-argumentβ′)succeeds as a defeat may depend on the relative strength ofαandβ′.Letbe a binary ordering on the set of all arguments that can be constructed on the basis of an argumentation theory.In terms of[20],the definition ofdefeatis formulated as follows.

    Definition 5αdefeatsβif and only ifαundercutsβor successfully rebuts or successfully underminesβwith respect to.

    Note that the term ‘defeat’in Definition 5 is called ‘a(chǎn)ttack’in Dung’s abstract argumentation,where each attack succeeds as a defeat.([8])Hence,the term ‘defeat’in this paper is corresponding to the term ‘a(chǎn)ttack’in[8],while the term ‘a(chǎn)ttack’in this paper is a rebutting,an undercutting,or an undermnining.LetAbe a set of arguments constructed from an argumentation theoryAT=(AS,K)andRbe the set of defeat between arguments.Then,we call a tupleFAT=(A,R)be an argumentation framework.

    Example 2Continue Example 1.LetA={α1,α,α′,β1,β2,β}.Assume that all arguments have equal strength.LetR1andR2be the sets of defeats by applying restricted rebut and unrestricted rebut respectively.It holds thatR1={(β,α),(β,α′),(α′,β),(α′,β2)}andR2=R1∪{(α,β),(β2,α′)}.Two argumentation frameworks(A,R1)and(A,R2)are illustrated in Fig.2.

    Figure 2:Argumentation framworks corresponding to restricted/unrestricted rebut

    2.2 Abstact argumenation:eveluating the status of arguments

    After an argumentation frameworks has been constructed from argumentation theories,the status of the arguments can be evaluated according to the extension-based approach or labelling-based approach in the field of abstract argumentation([8]).

    In the extension-based approach,given an argumentation framework(A,R)andE?A,we say:Eisconflict-freeif and only if?α,β∈Esuch that(α,β)∈R;α∈AisdefendedbyEif and only if?β∈Aif(β,α)∈R,then?γ∈Esuch that(γ,β)∈R;Eisadmissibleif and only ifEis conflict-free,and each argument inE?Ais defended byE;Eis acomplete extensionif and only ifEis admissible,and each argument inAthat is defended byEis inE;Eis agrounded extensionif and only ifEis the minimal(with respect to set-inclusion)complete extension;Eis apreferred extensionifandonlyifEis amaximal(with respect toset-inclusion)completeextension;Eis astable extensionif and only ifEis conflict-free andEdefeats each argument that is not inE.

    Example 3Continue Example 2.It holds that

    (A,R1)has two preferred extensionsE1,1={α1,β1,β,β2}andE1,2={α1,β1,α,α′},while(A,R2)has three preferred extensionsE2,1=E1,1,E2,2=E1,2,andE2,3={α1,β1,α,β2}.

    It turns out thatConcs(E1,1)=Concs(E2,1)={p,r,?b,m},Concs(E1,2)=Concs(E2,2)={p,r,b,?m},Concs(E2,3)={p,r,b,m}.

    2.3 Properties of structured argumenation systems

    As presented above,given an argumentation theory,by means of argument construction and evaluation,we get a set of extensions,each of which is a set of arguments that can be accepted together according to some criteria.Then,a set of conclusions of the system is obtained.Now,the question is whether this set of conclusions can satisfy some rationality postulates?In[7],the authors introduce the following postulates:

    ·Subargument Closure:for every argument in an extension also all its subarguments are in the extension.

    ·Closure under strict rules:the set of conclusions of all arguments in an extension is closed under strict-rule application.

    ·Direct consistency:the set of conclusions of all arguments in an extension is consistent.

    ·Indirect Consistency:the closure of the set of conclusions of all arguments in an extension under strict-rule applications is consistent.

    RegardingASPIC+andASPIC?,it has been shown that the latter satisfies the postulates only under grounded semantics,while the former satisfies the postulates under any complete-based semantics.

    Example 4Continue Example 3.It holds thatConcs(E1,1),Concs(E2,1),

    Concs(E1,2)andConcs(E2,2)are consistent,both directly and indirectly.However,althoughConcs(E2,3)={p,r,b,m}is directly consistent,but it is not indirectly consistent,inthattheclosureofConcs(E2,3)under strict-rule application is equalto{p,r,b,m}∪{?b,?m}which is inconsistent.

    SinceASPIC?may violate some rationality postulates,it seems that it is better to adopt restricted rebut in a structured argumentation system.However,as pointed out in[5],this problem is controversial.This is illustrated by the following example to argue that it seems more natural to apply unrestricted rebut in daily life human reasoning.([5])

    Example 5In this example,John and Mary have the following arguments.

    John:“Bob will attend conferences A and I this year,as he has papers accepted at both.”

    Mary:“That won’t be possible,as his budget of£1000 only allows for one foreign trip.”

    LetL={accA,accI,budget,attA∧attI,?(attA∧attI)}whereaccA,accIandbudgetdenote ‘paper accepted at conference A’,‘paper accepted at conference I’and ‘budget is£1000’respectively.LetRd={accA?attA;accI?attI;budget??(attA∧attI)},andRs={attA,attI→attA∧attI}.There are the following arguments:

    When adopting restricted rebut,M2does not rebutJ5.It turns out that Bob will attend conferences A and I,which seems counter intuitive.

    Besides the restricted/unrestricted rebut mentioned above,in[11],the authors propose a disjunctive rebut by generalizing the unrestricted rebut,which could be described as:An argumentαgenerally rebuts an argumentβif and only ifβis defeasible and for someβ1,...,βn∈Sub(β),Conc(α)(“ˉ”denotes the contrariness).By the definition of this kind of rebutting,in the above example,M2rebutsJ5,since it claims that the conclusions of two defeasible sub-arguments ofJ5,which are“attA”and “attI”,cannot hold together.

    3 Empirical Study

    Since theoretically there are pros and cons to apply restricted rebut and unrestricted rebut,in this paper we conduct an empirical study to examine whether human intuitions are more in line with restricted rebut or with unrestricted rebut.

    In this survey,the subjects are provided with a couple of cases,each of which consists of an argument and a counterargument from a dialogue.The counterargument attacks the first argument under unrestricted rebut but not under restricted rebut.The respondents are asked whether they feel that the counterargument is a legitimate response to the first argument or not.If the answer is YES,then their intuitions are more in line with unrestricted rebut;otherwise,their intuitions are more in line with restricted rebut.We also designed an example of the generalized rebut by[11].Furthermore,in this survey,we add a question for every example:if a respondent feels that the counterargument is a legitimate response,then he is asked whether he think the counterargument actually attacks the first argument.Based on these ideas,a questionnaire used in this survey looks like the following.

    Questionnaire5Since the survey was conducted among Chinese students,the questionnaire was designed in Chinese.What we show in the paper is the English translation of the questionnaire.

    In each of the following six cases,you will see two arguments A and B.Intuitively,do you think that B is a legitimate response to A?If your answer to this question is YES,then do you think B actually attacks A?

    1.A:“We found Steven’s DNA at the scene of the crime,and we also confirmed that he has a similar previous conviction,so Steven is probably the murderer.”

    B:“Steven is not the murderer,because eyewitness Branden testified that Steven was not at the scene when the murder happened.”

    2.A:“Jessica is a fan of two popular Korean bands,EXO and Bigbang.Both of them will hold concert series separately at nearby cities in next few weeks.So,Jessica will attend at least two concerts soon.”

    B:“That won’t be possible.She has been assigned too much work recently,so that she doesn’t have the time to attend two concerts.”

    3.Assume that“if a man is tall,rich and handsome,then he is a‘tall rich handsome’6In China,“tall rich handsome”(“高富帥”in Chinese)is a popular expression that stands for a very desirable and admirable man(much like “Mr.Right”in English speaking countries),while an occupational chauffeur is normally not such a man..”

    A:“Lee is not only tall and handsome,but also rich,if you ever seen the luxury car he drives.So,Lee may be ‘tall rich handsome’for girls.”

    B:“No,he is not.He is an occupational chauffeur for the car owner.”

    4.Assume you agree that“crime is always forbidden”.

    A:“Lying leads to crime.Crimes should be banned.So,lying should be forbidden.”

    B:“Sometimes telling white lies may help others,there is no reason to for bid people from doing something helpful.Thus lying should not be forbidden.”

    5.A:“Every human is mortal.Lu Xun(a great writer from China)is a human.Lu Xun is mortal.”

    B:“Lu Xun is immortal,because I am happy today.”

    6.A:“I have a gift for good friend.Lee and King are both my good friends,if I give a gift to Lee,then I should also give a gift to King.”

    B:“But there is only one gift.Either you cannot give a gift to Lee,or you cannot give a gift to King.”

    In this questionnaire,we formulate six different cases for different scenarios so that we may not rely so much on a single case.In the first case,there is an attack fromBtoAunder both restricted and unrestricted rebut.In the fifth case,there is no attack fromBtoAunder restricted or unrestricted rebut,sinceA’s argument is strict.In the cases 2,3 and 4,there are attacks under unrestricted rebut but not under restricted rebut.In the last case,the counterargument attacks the first argument as:for two argumentsαandβ,ifα′,α′′∈Sub(α),whileConc(α′)=p,Conc(α′′)=qandConc(β)=?p∨?q,thenβgenerally(disjunctively)rebutsα.

    What follows is the formal structure of the arguments in the questionnaire.7Here att1and att2denote for the attack relations under restricted rebut and unrestricted rebut respectively.

    1.LetL={D,m,pc,tB,?as,?m},whereD,m,pc,tB,andasdenote ‘DNA of Steven’,‘Steven is the murderer’,‘Steven has similar previous conviction’,‘testimony of Branden’,and ‘Steven was at the scene’,respectively.K={D,pc,tB},Rd={D?as;as,pc?m;tB??as;?as??m},andRs=?.Arguments are:

    2.LetL={fE,attE,fB,attB,attE∧attB,w,?t,?(attE∧attB)},wherefE,attE,fB,attB,w,andtdenote ‘fan of EXO’,‘a(chǎn)ttend the concert of EXO’,‘fan of BigBang’,‘a(chǎn)ttend the concert of BigBang’,‘too much work’,and ‘a(chǎn)fford time’,respectively.K={fE,fB,w},Rd={fE?attE;fB?attB;w??t;?t??(attE∧attB)},andRs={attE,attB→attE∧attB}.Arguments are:

    3.LetL={t,h,lc,r,t∧r∧h,MR,c,?MR},wheret,h,lc,r,MR,andcdenote‘tall’,‘handsome’,‘drive luxury car’,‘rich’,‘Mr.Right’,and ‘chauffeur’,respectively.K={t,h,lc,c},Rd={lc?r;c??MR},andRs={t,r,h→t∧r∧h;t∧r∧h→MR}.Arguments are:

    4.LetL={l,c,f,wl,h,?f},wherel,c,f,wl,andhdenote ‘lying’,‘crime’,‘be forbidden’,‘tell white lie’,and ‘help people’,respectively.K={l},Rd={l?c;l?wl;wl?h;h??f},andRs={c→f}.Arguments are:

    5.LetL={LX,h,m,hp,?m}whereLX,h,m,andhpdenote ‘LuXun’,‘human’,‘mortal’,and ‘I am happy today’,respectively.K={LX,hp},Rd={hp??mortal},andRs={LX→h;h→m}.Arguments are:

    6.LetL={one_g,fL,fK,gL,gK,?gL,?gK},whereone_g,fL,fK,gL,andgKdenote ‘have a gift to good friend’,‘Lee is good friend’,‘King is good friend’,‘give a gift to Lee’,and‘give a gift to King’,respectively.K={one_g,fL,fK},Rd={one_g,fL?gL;fL,fK,gL?gK;one_g??gL∨?gK},andRs=?.Arguments are:

    By using the above questionnaire,the survey took place among 230 undergraduate students(101 males and 129 females)whose majors covers computer science,law,linguistic,economics,management,museology,engineering,medical science,business administration and advertisement.The ages of the students were between 18 and 22.And,88 percent of these respondents had no logic background(the rest had accepted a short-term course ‘introduction to logic’),so that they could represent the general audience in argumentation.

    Figure 3:Result

    The results are showed by the table and graph in Fig.3.

    For the case 1,88.7%of the respondents agree that B’s argument is a legitimate counter reaction,and 84.8%of them think thatBactually attacksA’s argument(75.2%of all the respondents).For the case 2,3 and 4,there are respectively 71.7%,72.2%and 83.9%of students agree thatB’s argument is a legitimate counter reaction,and respectively 91.5%,94.6%and 83.9%of them think thatBactually attacksA’s argument(65.7%,68.3%,70.4%of all the respondents respectively).For the case 6,there are 85.2%of the respondents agree thatB’s argument is a legitimate counter reaction,and 81.1%of them(69.1%of all the respondents)think thatBactually attacksA’s argument.

    For the case5,only12.2%of the respondents think thatB’s argument is a legitimate reaction,and only 4.8%of the respondents thinkBattacksA’s argument,which means that people’s intuitions are in line with that we cannot attack a strict argument..Especially,none of those respondents who have accepted logical training answers YES to the first question of this case.

    According to the empirical result,most of the respondents agreed that in the cases 2,3,and 4,arguments ofBattack arguments ofA,which reveals that people’s intuitions are more in line with unrestricted rebut.What’s more,the answer to the case 6 shows the disjunctive rebut as we shows is in line with people’s intuition.

    4 Conclusions

    In this paper,we have introduced the basic notions of formal argumentation systems,and analyzed the pros and cons of adopting restricted or unrestricted rebut in an argumentation system.Based on the theoretical analysis,we have conducted an empirical study.The results show that according to people’s intuitions,it is more natural to adopt unrestricted rebut.

    These results are especially relevant when argumentation has dialectical aspects,for instance,when there is a bilateral discussion going on.This might be because human reasoning intends to look an argument as an integral entity,not only considers its toprule.People analyze conflicts between arguments unconsciously.When they put forward counterarguments, they know somehow the argument that they are attacking is not strictly strong, no matter where the weak point is (at the top rule or any other parts).There stricted rebut constrains rebutting only on the arguments with defeasible top rule,so that it forces people to modify the way they give their opinion,to make their counterarguments suit the requirement of an argumentation system for making an attack,which is unnatural.On the other hand,although unrestricted rebut is more intuitive than restricted rebut,it comes at a price:when unrestricted rebut is applied,the formalism will be guaranteed to satisfyClosureandIndirect Consistencyonly under grounded semantics([5]).

    Since there are advantages and disadvantages of applying restricted rebut or unrestricted rebut and the unrestricted rebut is more natural to people’s intuitions,it is worth to further develop argumentation formalisms that are not only consistent with people’s intuitions,but also general enough to cover most of argumentation semantics.According to the working mechanism of formal argumentation systems introduced in section 2,in order to develop a well-behaved system,the requirements of different components need to be considered systematically.More specifically,at the language level,the requirements are mainly about the consistency of conclusions,while at the argument level,the requirements is mainly about when an argument can be attacked and when an argument can be accepted.How to better combine the requirements at two levels to improve the properties of an argumentation system is an open problem,and will be our future work.

    What’s more,the presented survey considers only a few types of argumentation,and the respondents only cover undergraduate students.In further studies,we plan to extend the survey by including more kinds of argumentations as well as by including more varied respondents,so as to further explore the relationship between natural language ar-gumentation and the formal argumentation formalisms,which can bring more guidances for the improvement of formal argumentation systems designing.

    猜你喜歡
    高富帥
    淺析新時代“高富帥”輔導(dǎo)員在思想政治教育工作中發(fā)揮的作用
    商情(2016年52期)2017-04-14 23:09:09
    歌手廖芊芊催熟“高富帥”男友,收獲美滿的愛情
    “高富帥”和“白富美”的另一種定義
    華碩ZenFone 2晶鉆系列領(lǐng)銜 手機(jī)界“高富帥”熱力推薦
    個人電腦(2015年11期)2015-12-23 11:53:37
    潘姓里邊的“高富帥”
    婦女之友(2015年9期)2015-10-21 07:31:48
    模因論視閾下的“高富帥”類流行語探究
    古代哪位“高富帥”生了3個皇后女兒
    海峽姐妹(2014年5期)2014-02-27 15:09:24
    “高富帥”,我愛您
    Comments
    China Pictorial(2013年1期)2013-04-29 00:44:03
    “高富帥”與“白富美”
    国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 在线av久久热| av片东京热男人的天堂| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 久久人妻av系列| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 无限看片的www在线观看| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 日韩欧美三级三区| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 在线av久久热| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 精品福利观看| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 日韩欧美在线二视频 | 丁香六月欧美| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 99久久人妻综合| 黄色女人牲交| 久久香蕉国产精品| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 久久性视频一级片| 精品久久久久久电影网| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 1024香蕉在线观看| 亚洲av美国av| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 女性被躁到高潮视频| 超碰97精品在线观看| 日本欧美视频一区| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 国产精品国产高清国产av | 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 电影成人av| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 日韩欧美免费精品| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 亚洲人成电影观看| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽 | 一进一出抽搐动态| 国产精品免费大片| 丁香六月欧美| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 国产不卡一卡二| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 亚洲av熟女| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 国产高清激情床上av| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 校园春色视频在线观看| 中文欧美无线码| av片东京热男人的天堂| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 多毛熟女@视频| 国产区一区二久久| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 在线国产一区二区在线| av不卡在线播放| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 亚洲精品一二三| 亚洲九九香蕉| 制服诱惑二区| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 怎么达到女性高潮| 制服人妻中文乱码| 99国产精品99久久久久| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 91精品三级在线观看| 日韩欧美三级三区| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 日韩欧美三级三区| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 免费观看精品视频网站| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片 | 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女 | 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 久久 成人 亚洲| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 999久久久国产精品视频| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 电影成人av| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 9191精品国产免费久久| 窝窝影院91人妻| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 自线自在国产av| 老司机福利观看| 国产av精品麻豆| 岛国在线观看网站| 黄片播放在线免费| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 99在线人妻在线中文字幕 | 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 久久热在线av| 国产精品免费视频内射| 日本欧美视频一区| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 精品国产亚洲在线| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 一本综合久久免费| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 国产精品av久久久久免费| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 香蕉国产在线看| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| xxx96com| 18在线观看网站| 校园春色视频在线观看| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www | 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 久久久国产成人免费| 国产高清videossex| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 亚洲av成人av| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 亚洲五月天丁香| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 免费在线观看日本一区| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| av中文乱码字幕在线| 老司机影院毛片| 国产精品影院久久| videosex国产| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 亚洲国产欧美网| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 一区在线观看完整版| svipshipincom国产片| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 久久狼人影院| 人妻一区二区av| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | 亚洲,欧美精品.| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 人人澡人人妻人| 黄色 视频免费看| 亚洲第一青青草原| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 一级毛片精品| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 午夜两性在线视频| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 91国产中文字幕| 我的亚洲天堂| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 精品久久久久久,| 91av网站免费观看| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 欧美大码av| 不卡一级毛片| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 777米奇影视久久| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看 | 极品教师在线免费播放| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 不卡av一区二区三区| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 满18在线观看网站| 久久精品成人免费网站| 9色porny在线观看| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 成人国语在线视频| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 一进一出抽搐动态| 成人影院久久| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 亚洲精品一二三| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲 | 国产xxxxx性猛交| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 欧美成人午夜精品| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕 | av中文乱码字幕在线| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 91大片在线观看| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 久久狼人影院| av网站在线播放免费| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| www.自偷自拍.com| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 三级毛片av免费| 高清av免费在线| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 99热只有精品国产| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频 | 久久99一区二区三区| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 中文字幕制服av| 亚洲精品一二三| 亚洲av美国av| 操出白浆在线播放| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 久久国产精品影院| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 久久中文字幕一级| 老司机福利观看| 超碰97精品在线观看| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 久久久国产成人免费| 成人精品一区二区免费| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 丁香欧美五月| 久久久国产成人免费| 91在线观看av| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 69精品国产乱码久久久| 美女福利国产在线| 日日夜夜操网爽| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| av国产精品久久久久影院| 国产成人系列免费观看| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽 | 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 99久久人妻综合| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| av片东京热男人的天堂| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | a级毛片在线看网站| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 大码成人一级视频| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 69av精品久久久久久| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| av免费在线观看网站| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 99国产精品99久久久久| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 一区福利在线观看| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 国产精品永久免费网站| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 色播在线永久视频| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 老司机福利观看| 悠悠久久av| 日韩欧美免费精品| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 日本五十路高清| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 久久久国产成人精品二区 | 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| av天堂久久9| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | www.自偷自拍.com| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 91在线观看av| 深夜精品福利| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| xxx96com| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 国产野战对白在线观看| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 国产1区2区3区精品| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 在线视频色国产色| 久久久国产成人免费| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址 | 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| tube8黄色片| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 久久精品成人免费网站| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出 | 少妇的丰满在线观看| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 一区在线观看完整版| 欧美成人午夜精品| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 欧美日韩av久久| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 国产区一区二久久| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 免费看十八禁软件| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区 | 亚洲伊人色综图| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 欧美大码av| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 久久亚洲真实| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 岛国在线观看网站| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 欧美色视频一区免费| 精品福利观看| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 岛国在线观看网站| 91av网站免费观看| 免费观看精品视频网站| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 日日夜夜操网爽| 一区福利在线观看| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 国产av又大| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 91大片在线观看| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av | 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 国产精品九九99| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 久久香蕉国产精品| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 大香蕉久久网| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | bbb黄色大片| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 国产精品永久免费网站| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区 | 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 黄频高清免费视频| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 久久中文字幕人妻熟女| 国产高清videossex| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| tube8黄色片| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 国产成人影院久久av| 国产免费男女视频| 满18在线观看网站| www日本在线高清视频| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 五月开心婷婷网| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 精品亚洲成国产av| 国产成人av教育| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 又大又爽又粗| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址 | 少妇 在线观看| 中国美女看黄片| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 很黄的视频免费| 天天影视国产精品| 窝窝影院91人妻| 国产野战对白在线观看| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 99香蕉大伊视频| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 操出白浆在线播放| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片 | 多毛熟女@视频| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 99香蕉大伊视频| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线 | 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽 | 国产激情欧美一区二区| 国产三级黄色录像| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月 | 十八禁网站免费在线| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 国产野战对白在线观看| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 黄色女人牲交| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 日韩欧美三级三区| 丁香六月欧美| 黄频高清免费视频| 精品第一国产精品| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 久久热在线av| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 国产高清激情床上av| 在线播放国产精品三级| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费 | 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 国产成人欧美| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 超碰97精品在线观看| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 超碰成人久久| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 三级毛片av免费| 嫩草影视91久久| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看 | 丝袜在线中文字幕| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 亚洲成人手机| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 国产精品久久视频播放| ponron亚洲| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 亚洲第一av免费看| 国产精品久久视频播放| 午夜视频精品福利| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 99re在线观看精品视频| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 老熟女久久久| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 大香蕉久久网| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 久99久视频精品免费| 一a级毛片在线观看| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3 | 波多野结衣av一区二区av|