• <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are usually subjective.Meanwhile,when new information arrives,some arguments and the conclusions they support may be withdrawn.So,the reasoning process is intrinsically dynamic and defeasible.Since traditional computer-based reasoning is typically based on classical monotonic logic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”
    久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 91精品国产九色| a级毛色黄片| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 国内精品宾馆在线| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 黄色日韩在线| 欧美潮喷喷水| 日韩视频在线欧美| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 午夜视频国产福利| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄 | 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 99热这里只有精品一区| 91狼人影院| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 波多野结衣高清作品| 精品人妻视频免费看| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 少妇的逼好多水| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| www日本黄色视频网| 免费大片18禁| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 搞女人的毛片| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 18+在线观看网站| 男人舔奶头视频| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 1000部很黄的大片| 国产三级在线视频| 久久久久久伊人网av| 一级毛片电影观看 | 久久久成人免费电影| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 久久这里只有精品中国| 黑人高潮一二区| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 91狼人影院| 国产一区二区三区av在线 | 看十八女毛片水多多多| 色吧在线观看| 久99久视频精品免费| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 嫩草影院新地址| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 国产成人aa在线观看| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 综合色av麻豆| 如何舔出高潮| 国产老妇女一区| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 春色校园在线视频观看| 午夜视频国产福利| www日本黄色视频网| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| or卡值多少钱| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 高清午夜精品一区二区三区 | 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 午夜福利在线在线| 舔av片在线| 成人二区视频| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 1024手机看黄色片| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 亚洲性久久影院| 免费观看在线日韩| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 国产视频内射| 久久久久国产网址| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 中文字幕久久专区| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| a级毛色黄片| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 亚洲无线在线观看| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 国产免费男女视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 久久99精品国语久久久| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 天堂√8在线中文| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 特级一级黄色大片| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 一级av片app| h日本视频在线播放| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 久久精品夜色国产| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 在线免费观看的www视频| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 免费看光身美女| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 亚洲国产色片| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 国产精品,欧美在线| 国产真实乱freesex| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 91狼人影院| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 51国产日韩欧美| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 国产精品野战在线观看| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| av专区在线播放| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 99热这里只有精品一区| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 69av精品久久久久久| 丝袜喷水一区| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 在线国产一区二区在线| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 如何舔出高潮| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 欧美成人a在线观看| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 中文欧美无线码| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 亚洲四区av| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 悠悠久久av| 99热只有精品国产| 97热精品久久久久久| 内地一区二区视频在线| 国产三级中文精品| av在线播放精品| 久久久久性生活片| 看黄色毛片网站| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| www.色视频.com| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 日本黄大片高清| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 久久久欧美国产精品| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 亚洲国产色片| 在线天堂最新版资源| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 免费av不卡在线播放| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 亚洲内射少妇av| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看 | 中国国产av一级| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕 | 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 色5月婷婷丁香| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 国产91av在线免费观看| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 在线免费十八禁| 大香蕉久久网| 免费大片18禁| 人人妻人人看人人澡| www.色视频.com| 日本黄色片子视频| 久久热精品热| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| av福利片在线观看| 欧美zozozo另类| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 一级av片app| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 美女大奶头视频| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| av免费在线看不卡| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 中文资源天堂在线| 欧美bdsm另类| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 直男gayav资源| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 色播亚洲综合网| 直男gayav资源| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 变态另类丝袜制服| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 插逼视频在线观看| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 69av精品久久久久久| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 亚洲综合色惰| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 亚洲av熟女| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 亚洲av男天堂| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 国产探花极品一区二区| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 日本五十路高清| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 国产老妇女一区| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 国产单亲对白刺激| 熟女电影av网| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 欧美激情在线99| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 一级毛片电影观看 | 欧美+日韩+精品| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 国产精品野战在线观看| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 国产综合懂色| 国产精品一及| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 午夜激情欧美在线| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 一本久久中文字幕| 小说图片视频综合网站| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| av在线播放精品| 国产免费男女视频| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 午夜久久久久精精品| 精品国产三级普通话版| 极品教师在线视频| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 国产一级毛片在线| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 舔av片在线| 18+在线观看网站| 亚洲无线在线观看| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 久久久久久久久中文| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 日本一二三区视频观看| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 99热网站在线观看| 欧美3d第一页| 永久网站在线| 一夜夜www| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 精品人妻视频免费看| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 免费看光身美女| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 久久久久久久久大av| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 97超视频在线观看视频| 久久久精品大字幕| 少妇的逼好多水| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 国产在线男女| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 伦精品一区二区三区| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 免费看光身美女| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 久久久久国产网址| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 日本一二三区视频观看| 91久久精品电影网| 青春草国产在线视频 | 欧美色视频一区免费| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 一进一出抽搐动态| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 级片在线观看| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 在线免费观看的www视频| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 亚洲无线在线观看| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 精品久久久久久久末码| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在 | 伦理电影大哥的女人| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 身体一侧抽搐| 久久久久性生活片| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 国产色婷婷99| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 国产午夜精品论理片| 日韩成人伦理影院| 69人妻影院| .国产精品久久| 一本久久精品| 国产乱人视频| 国产单亲对白刺激| 精品一区二区免费观看| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放 | 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片 精品乱码久久久久久99久播 | 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 国产91av在线免费观看| 亚州av有码| 国产在线男女| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 免费av不卡在线播放| 国内精品宾馆在线| av天堂在线播放| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 成人欧美大片| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 九九在线视频观看精品| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 国产精品无大码| 亚洲不卡免费看| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 色播亚洲综合网| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 美女大奶头视频| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 尾随美女入室| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 九色成人免费人妻av| 国产成人一区二区在线| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 老司机福利观看| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | 在现免费观看毛片| 日本与韩国留学比较| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 波多野结衣高清作品| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 三级毛片av免费| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕 | 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 午夜a级毛片| 禁无遮挡网站| 国产老妇女一区| 久久午夜福利片| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 亚洲无线观看免费| 日本免费a在线| 91狼人影院| 国产成人福利小说| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 国产成人精品婷婷| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 综合色av麻豆| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 九色成人免费人妻av| 国产在线男女| 中国国产av一级| 国产午夜精品论理片| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| av专区在线播放| 黑人高潮一二区| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 久久中文看片网| 日本一本二区三区精品| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 深夜精品福利| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 91久久精品电影网| 国产91av在线免费观看| 色哟哟·www| 黄色配什么色好看| 在线免费十八禁| eeuss影院久久| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 性欧美人与动物交配| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 中文资源天堂在线| 春色校园在线视频观看| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 一级毛片我不卡| 一本一本综合久久| 一级av片app| 此物有八面人人有两片| 一级黄片播放器| 日本五十路高清| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 99久国产av精品| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 韩国av在线不卡| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 亚洲内射少妇av| 亚洲色图av天堂| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 极品教师在线视频| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 久久精品夜色国产| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 国产午夜精品论理片| 久久九九热精品免费| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 国产乱人视频| 国产在视频线在精品| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 久久精品91蜜桃| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 99热6这里只有精品| 一区福利在线观看| 看黄色毛片网站| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 美女大奶头视频| av专区在线播放| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 成人综合一区亚洲| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 午夜福利高清视频| av黄色大香蕉| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 不卡一级毛片| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 插逼视频在线观看| 99久国产av精品| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 91精品国产九色| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 久久草成人影院| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 国产精品三级大全| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 亚洲最大成人av| 免费观看在线日韩| 内地一区二区视频在线| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 亚洲第一电影网av| 嫩草影院新地址| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久|