An argumentation semantics for rational human evaluation of arguments.

In abstract argumentation theory, many argumentation semantics have been proposed for evaluating argumentation frameworks. This article is based on the following research question: Which semantics corresponds well to what humans consider a rational judgment on the acceptability of arguments? There are two systematic ways to approach this research question: A normative perspective is provided by the principle-based approach, in which semantics are evaluated based on their satisfaction of various normatively desirable principles. A descriptive perspective is provided by the empirical approach, in which cognitive studies are conducted to determine which semantics best predicts human judgments about arguments.

Reasoning on conflicting information: An empirical study of Formal Argumentation.

According to the Argumentative Theory, human reasoning has an argumentative function, which consists of devising and evaluating arguments for and against various claims. It is however unclear how humans handle conflicting claims they face in everyday life (i.e.

LogiKEy workbench: Deontic logics, logic combinations and expressive ethical and legal reasoning (Isabelle/HOL dataset).

The LogiKEy workbench and dataset for ethical and legal reasoning is presented. This workbench simultaneously supports development, experimentation, assessment and deployment of formal logics and ethical and legal theories at different conceptual layers. More concretely, it comprises, in form of a dataset (Isabelle/HOL theory files), formal encodings of multiple deontic logics, logic combinations, deontic paradoxes and normative theories in the higher-order proof assistant system Isabelle/HOL.