=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1811/inv5
|storemode=property
|title=None
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1811/inv5.pdf
|volume=Vol-1811
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/clar/Torre16
}}
==None==
<pdf width="1500px">https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1811/inv5.pdf</pdf>
<pre>
                                      Norms and Arguments

                                                Leendert van der Torre
                                                University of Luxembourg




                                                        Abstract
                       In this talk I discuss two relations between normative reasoning and
                       formal argumentation. First I consider formal argumentation as a kind
                       of normative reasoning. An attack of argument A on argument B is
                       interpreted either as “either A is not accepted or B should be accepted”
                       or as “A and B cannot both be accepted, and it is preferred to accept
                       A over B”. The difference between the two interpretations is analyzed
                       for higher order attack (where attacks can be attacked) and for con-
                       trary to duty argumentation (where arguments that should be rejected
                       are accepted). Second, I apply a theory of structured argumentation
                       to normative reasoning. In an ASPIC+ style setting, I discuss the def-
                       inition of argument, the role of constitutive and permissive norms, and
                       hierarchical normative systems.




Copyright © by the paper’s authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
In: T. Ågotnes, B. Liao, Y.N. Wang (eds.): Proceedings of the first Chinese Conference on Logic and Argumentation (CLAR 2016),
Hangzhou, China, 2-3 April 2016, published at http://ceur-ws.org




                                                            5

</pre>