Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Debate Games in Logic Programming

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management (INAP 2013, WLP 2013, WFLP 2013)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 8439))

  • 509 Accesses

Abstract

A debate game provides an abstract model of debates between two players based on the formal argumentation framework. This paper presents a method of realizing debate games in logic programming. Two players have their knowledge bases represented by extended logic programs, and build claims using arguments associated with those programs. A player updates its knowledge base with arguments posed by the opponent player, and tries to refute claims by the opponent. During a debate game, a player may claim false or incorrect arguments as a tactic to win the game. The result of this paper provides a new formulation of debate games in a non-abstract argumentation framework associated with logic programming. Moreover, it provides a novel application of logic programming to modelling social debates which involve argumentative reasoning, belief update and dishonest reasoning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Rules are separated by semicolons in a sequence \(A\) of rules, while they are separated by commas in a set \(P\) of rules.

  2. 2.

    Here, \(A\) is viewed as a set of rules.

  3. 3.

    Note that the sequence \(A\) is treated as a set here.

  4. 4.

    A well-known example of this type is: “which came first, the chicken or the egg?”

  5. 5.

    An example of \(K_2\) is found in the famous speech by John F. Kennedy in September 12, 1962. “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” Put \(p=gotoMoon\) and \(q=hard\).

References

  1. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93(1–2), 63–101 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Caminada, M., Wu, Y.: On the limitation of abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC), Gent, Belgium (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Caminada, M.: Grounded semantics as persuasion dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 245, pp. 478–485. IOS Press (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 199–218. Springer, New York (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Fan, X., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation dialogues. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 198–203 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Frankfurt, H.G.: On Bullshit. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  8. García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. García, A.J., Dix, J., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation-based logic programming. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 153–171. Springer, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Logic programs with classical negation. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP), pp. 579–597. MIT Press (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL), pp. 53–62. ACM Press (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 347–376 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J. Appl. Non-Class. Log. 7(1), 25–75 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J. Log. Comput. 15(6), 1009–1040 (2005)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Prakken, H.: On the nature of argument schemes. In: Reed, C.A., Tindale, C. (eds.) Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation, An Examination of Douglas Walton’s Theories of Reasoning and Argument, pp. 167–185. College Publications, London (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rahwan, I., Larson, K., Tohmé, F.: A characterisation of strategy-proofness for grounded argumentation semantics. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 251–256 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sakama, C.: Dishonest reasoning by abduction. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 1063–1068 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sakama, C., Son, T.C., Pontelli, E.: A logical formulation for negotiation among dishonest agents. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 1069–1074 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sakama, C.: Dishonest arguments in debate games. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 245, pp. 177–184. IOS Press (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schopenhauer, A.: The Art of Controversy. Originally published in 1896 and is translated by T. Bailey Saunders. Cosimo Classics, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schweimeier, R., Schroeder, M.: A parameterized hierarchy of argumentation semantics for extended logic programming and its application to the well-founded semantics. Theor. Pract. Log. Program. 5(1–2), 207–242 (2005)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We thank Martin Caminada for useful discussion on the subject of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer and Communication Sciences, Wakayama University, Sakaedani, Wakayama, 640-8510, Japan

    Chiaki Sakama

Authors
  1. Chiaki Sakama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chiaki Sakama .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Kiel, Kiel, Germany

    Michael Hanus

  2. CRACS & INESC-Porto LA, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Ricardo Rocha

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Sakama, C. (2014). Debate Games in Logic Programming. In: Hanus, M., Rocha, R. (eds) Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management. INAP WLP WFLP 2013 2013 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8439. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08909-6_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08909-6_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08908-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08909-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation