• <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are usually subjective.Meanwhile,when new information arrives,some arguments and the conclusions they support may be withdrawn.So,the reasoning process is intrinsically dynamic and defeasible.Since traditional computer-based reasoning is typically based on classical monotonic logic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”
    一级黄色大片毛片| 老熟女久久久| 欧美在线黄色| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 又大又爽又粗| 一级片'在线观看视频| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看 | 欧美成人午夜精品| 考比视频在线观看| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 搡老岳熟女国产| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 国产精品成人在线| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 精品亚洲成国产av| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 免费观看av网站的网址| a级毛片在线看网站| 久久久久国内视频| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 亚洲avbb在线观看| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 美国免费a级毛片| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| netflix在线观看网站| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 国产精品.久久久| 日韩欧美免费精品| 国产成人精品久久二区二区91| 中文欧美无线码| 视频区图区小说| 777米奇影视久久| 人人澡人人妻人| 午夜福利视频精品| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 一级黄色大片毛片| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 宅男免费午夜| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区 | 午夜免费成人在线视频| 伦理电影免费视频| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 岛国毛片在线播放| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 久久精品成人免费网站| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 成人三级做爰电影| 黄片播放在线免费| 日韩欧美免费精品| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 香蕉国产在线看| 99久久国产精品久久久| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 婷婷成人精品国产| 亚洲第一av免费看| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 日韩欧美三级三区| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 国产精品 国内视频| 国产区一区二久久| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3 | 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 久久免费观看电影| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 丁香六月欧美| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 精品一区二区三卡| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 日韩欧美三级三区| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 免费在线观看日本一区| 亚洲 国产 在线| 国产成人精品在线电影| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色 | 天堂8中文在线网| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 丝袜喷水一区| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 精品第一国产精品| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 午夜两性在线视频| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 色播在线永久视频| 搡老岳熟女国产| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 老司机福利观看| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 在线天堂中文资源库| 亚洲免费av在线视频| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 91老司机精品| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 满18在线观看网站| 国产精品电影一区二区三区 | 岛国毛片在线播放| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 五月开心婷婷网| 操美女的视频在线观看| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 老司机福利观看| 久久久精品区二区三区| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕 | 国产亚洲精品一区二区www | 91国产中文字幕| 午夜日韩欧美国产| kizo精华| 成人国语在线视频| 超碰97精品在线观看| 国产av精品麻豆| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 男女免费视频国产| 9色porny在线观看| 天天影视国产精品| 99香蕉大伊视频| 成人永久免费在线观看视频 | 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 蜜桃在线观看..| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 国产不卡一卡二| 一区在线观看完整版| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 久久久精品94久久精品| 日本五十路高清| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说 | 乱人伦中国视频| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 91成人精品电影| 日韩欧美三级三区| 麻豆av在线久日| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3 | 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月 | 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 国产精品国产高清国产av | 女警被强在线播放| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 精品第一国产精品| 久热这里只有精品99| 视频区图区小说| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 国产精品九九99| www.精华液| 国产精品影院久久| 男人操女人黄网站| 手机成人av网站| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 夫妻午夜视频| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 亚洲人成电影观看| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 国产精品国产高清国产av | av片东京热男人的天堂| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 黄色视频不卡| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕 | 成人18禁在线播放| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 人人澡人人妻人| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 国产高清激情床上av| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 午夜久久久在线观看| 在线观看www视频免费| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 亚洲色图av天堂| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 搡老乐熟女国产| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 香蕉丝袜av| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频 | 午夜激情av网站| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 蜜桃国产av成人99| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区 | a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区 | 亚洲男人天堂网一区| cao死你这个sao货| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| a级毛片在线看网站| av天堂久久9| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影 | 青青草视频在线视频观看| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 91av网站免费观看| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 另类精品久久| 十八禁网站免费在线| 成人三级做爰电影| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 老司机福利观看| 蜜桃国产av成人99| 91av网站免费观看| 免费在线观看日本一区| 97在线人人人人妻| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 一区二区av电影网| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 免费观看av网站的网址| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 亚洲精品一二三| 麻豆av在线久日| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 国产精品 国内视频| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 天堂动漫精品| 国产色视频综合| 不卡av一区二区三区| 国产在线免费精品| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 大型av网站在线播放| 成人精品一区二区免费| 蜜桃在线观看..| av网站在线播放免费| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 黄色a级毛片大全视频| 天天影视国产精品| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 午夜激情av网站| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 视频区图区小说| 少妇 在线观看| 极品教师在线免费播放| 91大片在线观看| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| av福利片在线| 国产精品1区2区在线观看. | 老司机靠b影院| 天天添夜夜摸| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 99热网站在线观看| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 99re在线观看精品视频| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 高清在线国产一区| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看 | 国产精品av久久久久免费| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 91成人精品电影| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 不卡av一区二区三区| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 久久99一区二区三区| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 日韩欧美免费精品| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 1024香蕉在线观看| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 亚洲综合色网址| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 久久av网站| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 欧美日韩av久久| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 一区二区三区激情视频| 一进一出抽搐动态| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 大码成人一级视频| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 91精品三级在线观看| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 国产在线免费精品| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 18在线观看网站| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 精品亚洲成国产av| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| a级毛片黄视频| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 在线av久久热| 免费不卡黄色视频| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 天堂8中文在线网| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 精品福利永久在线观看| 精品国产国语对白av| 成年动漫av网址| 精品久久久久久电影网| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 亚洲中文av在线| 人人澡人人妻人| 欧美午夜高清在线| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 久久久国产成人免费| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 亚洲九九香蕉| 丝袜美足系列| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕 | www.熟女人妻精品国产| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| 高清在线国产一区| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 亚洲综合色网址| 国产一卡二卡三卡精品| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 久久热在线av| 色94色欧美一区二区| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 国产成人影院久久av| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 99热网站在线观看| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 精品高清国产在线一区| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 五月开心婷婷网| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 国产在线免费精品| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 国产在视频线精品| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 成人影院久久| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 考比视频在线观看| 亚洲综合色网址| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 桃花免费在线播放| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 久久久精品区二区三区| 18在线观看网站| 久久国产精品影院| 夜夜爽天天搞| 黄色成人免费大全| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 国产福利在线免费观看视频| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 成人国语在线视频| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 成人永久免费在线观看视频 | 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 精品国产一区二区久久| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| netflix在线观看网站| 中国美女看黄片| 乱人伦中国视频| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女 | 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| videosex国产| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 欧美在线黄色| 丁香六月欧美| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 日韩欧美免费精品| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区 | 久久影院123| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 一区二区三区激情视频| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| 曰老女人黄片| 午夜老司机福利片| 亚洲精品一二三| 高清欧美精品videossex| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 久久久精品区二区三区| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 国产精品.久久久| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 亚洲色图av天堂| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 超碰成人久久| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 考比视频在线观看| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 久久久久国内视频| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 看免费av毛片| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| videos熟女内射| 黄片播放在线免费| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 大型av网站在线播放| av线在线观看网站| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 我的亚洲天堂| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 亚洲全国av大片| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 国产成人精品无人区| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 精品福利永久在线观看| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 日本欧美视频一区| 99国产精品99久久久久| 成人手机av| 精品人妻在线不人妻|