What Is a Reasonable Argumentation Semantics?

Sarah Alice Gaggl, Sebastian Rudolph, Michaël Thomazo

Abstract: In view of the plethora of different argumentation semantics, we consider the question what the essential properties of a “reasonable” semantics are. We discuss three attempts of such a characterization, based on computational complexity, logical expressivity and invariance under partial duplication, which are satisfied by most, if not all, known semantics. We then challenge each of these proposals by exhibiting plausible semantics which still not satisfy our criteria, demonstrating the difficulty of our endeavor.