SCF2 -- an Argumentation Semantics for Rational Human Judgments on Argument Acceptability: Technical Report

TL;DR

This paper introduces SCF2, a new argumentation semantics designed to align with human judgments on argument acceptability by combining normative principles and empirical evidence.

Contribution

The paper proposes SCF2, a novel semantics that satisfies two new principles and is supported by cognitive studies, bridging normative and empirical approaches.

Findings

SCF2 satisfies two new normative principles.

Empirical studies support SCF2's alignment with human judgments.

No existing semantics satisfy both new principles.

Abstract

In abstract argumentation theory, many argumentation semantics have been proposed for evaluating argumentation frameworks. This paper 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. In this paper, we combine both approaches to motivate a new argumentation semantics called SCF2. For this purpose, we introduce and motivate two new principles and show that no semantics from the literature satisfies both of them. We define SCF2 and prove that it satisfies both new principles. Furthermore, we discuss findings of a recent empirical cognitive study that provide additional support to SCF2.