Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation

Abstract

This article investigates to what extent protocols for dynamic disputes, i.e., disputes in which the information base can vary at different stages, can be justified in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. First a general framework is formulated for dialectical proof theories for such logics. Then this framework is adapted to serve as a framework for protocols for dynamic disputes, after which soundness and fairness properties are formulated or such protocols relative to dialectical proof theories. It then turns out that certain types of protocols that are perfectly fine with a static information base, are not sound or fair in a dynamic setting. Finally, a natural dynamic protocol is defined for which soundness and fairness can be established.