The "Lottery Paradox" paradox and other self-attacking arguments from the point of view of defeasible argumentation frameworks

Abstract

The "lottery" paradox a problem derived from the well-known lottery paradox - arises as the result of chaiming defeasible reasons that lead from the statement 'the lottery is fair' to the statement ' the lottery is not fair', conforming in consequence a self-attacking argument. This paper shows two simple semantics that capture the intuitions about ehat kinds os arguments should become justified in such scenarios. The semantics, called sustainable an lax respectively, are modeled upon argumentation frameworks and constructed by P.M. Dung. sustainable semantics results to be more "credulos" than prederred semantics, since enables the acceptance os arguments that are attacked only by other arguments that in time are self-attacking. Lax semantics, on the other hand, do the same as sustainable sematics, in addition to the acceptance of arguments that are self-attacking only in an indirect eay (viz., those involvedin odd-length cycles of attack).