---
title: "Revisiting Unrestricted Rebut and Preferences in Structured Argumentation."
authors:
  - "Jesse Heyninck"
  - "Christian Straßer"
doi: "10.24963/ijcai.2017/151"
url: "https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2017/151"
pdf: "https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2017/0151.pdf"
venue: "Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence"
year: 2017
pages: "1088-1092"
track: "Main track"
keywords:
  - "Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Logic: Logics for Knowledge Representation"
  - "Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Logic: Computational models of Argument"
  - "Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Logic: Preferences"
  - "Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Logic: Non-monotonic Reasoning"
---

# Revisiting Unrestricted Rebut and Preferences in Structured Argumentation.

Jesse Heyninck, Christian Straßer

*Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, pages 1088-1092. DOI: [10.24963/ijcai.2017/151](https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/151)

## Abstract

In structured argumentation frameworks such as ASPIC+, rebuts are only allowed in conclusions produced by defeasible rules. This has been criticized as counter-intuitive especially in dialectical contexts. In this paper we show that ASPIC-, a system allowing for unrestricted rebuts, suffers from contamination problems. We remedy this shortcoming by generalizing the attack rule of unrestricted rebut. Our resulting system satisfies the usual rationality postulates for prioritized rule bases.