attackRelation
Graph · Kotlin object AttackRelationModule · library prolog.argumentation.attack
When an argument attacks another one directly (module attackRelation): rebutting or undermining it through a conflict
between their conclusions, rebutting or undermining it through a contrary premise, or undercutting its top rule.
Whether the attack succeeds is up to the graph extensions (preferences, restrictions).
- Calls: argument, conflict, conflictArguments, utils
- Called by: attackBuilder, structuredPartial
| Predicate | Description |
|---|---|
attacks/3 | Attacker attacks Attacked directly, Type being the first kind of attack that applies |
rebuts/2 | The conclusion of A conflicts with the one of B, a defeasible argument with a top rule |
contraryRebuts/2 | A concludes the contrary of a premise of the top rule of B (~(Claim)), both having a top rule |
undermines/2 | The conclusion of A conflicts with B, a defeasible premise (or its copy for a conflict, see the module conflictArguments) |
contraryUndermines/2 | A, a premise, is the contrary of a premise of the top rule of B (~(Claim)) |
undercuts/2 | A concludes undercut(Rule), or a statement conflicting with [Rule], Rule being the defeasible top rule of B |
conflictsWith/2 | The conclusion of Argument conflicts with Statement: only through its own conflict for the copy of an argument made for a conflict argument (see the module conflictArguments), through any conflict otherwise |
attacks/3
attacks(?Type, +Attacker, +Attacked)Attacker attacks Attacked directly, Type being the first kind of attack that applies.
rebuts/2
rebuts(+A, +B)The conclusion of A conflicts with the one of B, a defeasible argument with a top rule.
contraryRebuts/2
contraryRebuts(+A, +B)A concludes the contrary of a premise of the top rule of B (~(Claim)), both having a top rule.
undermines/2
undermines(+A, +B)The conclusion of A conflicts with B, a defeasible premise (or its copy for a conflict, see the module conflictArguments).
contraryUndermines/2
contraryUndermines(+A, +B)A, a premise, is the contrary of a premise of the top rule of B (~(Claim)).
undercuts/2
undercuts(+A, +B)A concludes undercut(Rule), or a statement conflicting with [Rule], Rule being the defeasible top rule of B.
conflictsWith/2
conflictsWith(+Argument, ?Statement)The conclusion of Argument conflicts with Statement: only through its own conflict for the copy of an argument made for a conflict argument (see the module conflictArguments), through any conflict otherwise.