Alejandro García

In abstract argumentation, each argument is regarded as atomic. There is no internal structure to an argument. Also, there is no specification of what is an argument or an attack. They are assumed to be given. This abstract perspective provides many advantages for studying the nature of argumentation, but it does not cover all our needs for understanding argumentation or for building tools for supporting or undertaking argumentation. If we want a more detailed formalization of arguments than is available with abstract argumentation, we can turn to structured argumentation, which is the topic of this special issue of Argument and Computation. In structured argumentation, we assume a formal language for representing knowledge and specifying how arguments and counterarguments can be constructed from that knowledge. An argument is then said to be structured in the sense that normally, the premises and claim of the argument are made explicit, and the relationship between the premises and claim is formally defined (for instance, using logical entailment). In this introduction, we provide a brief overview of the approaches covered in this special issue on structured argumentation.

Most formalisms for representing common-sense knowledge allow incomplete and potentially inconsistent information. When strong negation is also allowed, contradictory conclusions can arise. A criterion for deciding between them is needed. The aim of this paper is to investigate an inherent and autonomous comparison criterion, based on specificity as defined in [POO 85, SIM 92]. In contrast to other approaches, we consider not only defeasible, but also strict knowledge. Our criterion is context-sensitive, i. e., preference among defeasible rules is determined dynamically during the dialectical analysis.We show how specificity can be defined in terms of two different approaches: activation sets and derivation trees. This allows us to get a syntactic criterion that can be implemented in a computationally attractive way. The resulting definitions may be applied in general rulebased formalisms. We present theorems linking both characterizations. Finally we discuss other frameworks for defeasible reasoning in which preference handling is considered explicitly.

In the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin argued that his revolutionary theory of evolution by natural selection represented a significant breakthrough in the understanding of instinctive behaviour. However, many aspects in the development of his thinking on behavioural phenomena indicate that the explanation of this particular organic feature was by no means an easy one, but that it posed an authentic challenge – something that Darwin himself always recognized. This paper explores Darwin’s treatment of instincts within his theory of natural selection. Particular attention is given to elucidate how he tackled the difficulties of explaining instincts as evolving mental features. He had to explain and demonstrate its inheritance, variation, and gradual accumulation within populations. The historical and philosophical aspects of his theory are highlighted, as well as his study of the case in which the explanation of instincts represented a ‘special difficulty’; that is, the sterile castes of social insects.

Most formalisms for representing common-sense knowledge allow incomplete and potentially inconsistent information. When strong negation is also allowed, contradictory conclusions can arise. A criterion for deciding between them is needed. The aim of this paper is to investigate an inherent and autonomous comparison criterion, based on specificity as defined in [POO 85, SIM 92]. In contrast to other approaches, we consider not only defeasible, but also strict knowledge. Our criterion is context-sensitive, i. e., preference among defeasible rules is determined dynamically during the dialectical analysis.We show how specificity can be defined in terms of two different approaches: activation sets and derivation trees. This allows us to get a syntactic criterion that can be implemented in a computationally attractive way. The resulting definitions may be applied in general rulebased formalisms. We present theorems linking both characterizations. Finally we discuss other frameworks for defeasible reasoning in which preference handling is considered explicitly.

We propose a revision operator on a stratified belief base, i.e., a belief base that stores beliefs in different strata corresponding to the value an agent assigns to these beliefs. Furthermore, the operator will be defined as to perform the revision in such a way that information is never lost upon revision but stored in a stratum or layer containing information perceived as having a lower value. In this manner, if the revision of one layer leads to the rejection of some information to maintain consistency, instead of being withdrawn it will be kept and introduced in a different layer with lower value. Throughout this development we will follow the principle of minimal change, being one of the important principles proposed in belief change theory, particularly emphasized in the AGM model. Regarding the reasoning part from the stratified belief base, the agent will obtain the inferences using an argumentative formalism. Thus, the argumentation framework will decide which information prevails when sentences of different layers are used for entailing conflicting beliefs. We will also illustrate how inferences are changed and how the status of arguments can be modified after a revision process.

Argumentation represents a way of reasoning over a knowledge base containing possibly incomplete and/or inconsistent information, to obtain useful conclusions. As a reasoning mechanism, the way an argumentation reasoning engine reaches these conclusions resembles the cognitive process that humans follow to analyze their beliefs; thus, unlike other computationally reasoning systems, argumentation offers an intellectually friendly alternative to other defeasible reasoning systems. LogicProgrammingisacomputationalparadigmthathasproducedcompu- tationallyattractivesystemswithremarkablesuccessinmanyapplications. Merging ideas from both areas, Defeasible Logic Programming offers a computational reasoning system that uses an argumentation engine to obtain answers from a knowledge base represented using a logic programming language extended with defeasible rules. This combination of ideas brings about a computationally effective system together with a human-like reasoning model facilitating its use in applications.

This work introduces the Attack-Support Argumentation Framework (ASAF), an approach to abstract argumentation that allows for the representation and combination of attack and support relations. This framework extends the argumentation Framework with Recursive Attacks (AFRA) in two ways. Firstly, it adds a support relation enabling to express support for arguments; this support can also be given to attacks, and to the support relation itself. Secondly, it extends AFRA’s attack relation by allowing attacks to the aforementioned support relation. Moreover, since the support relation of the ASAF has a necessity interpretation, the ASAF also extends the Argumentation Framework with Necessities (AFN). Thus, the ASAF provides a unified framework for representing attack and support for arguments, as well as attack and support for the attack and support relations at any level.

In this paper we introduce a formalism for single-agent decision making that is based on Dynamic Argumentation Frameworks. The formalism can be used to justify a choice, which is based on the current situation the agent is involved. Taking advantage of the inference mechanism of the argumentation formalism, it is possible to consider preference relations, and conflicts among the available alternatives for that reasoning. With this formalization, given a particular set of evidence, the justified conclusions supported by warranted arguments will be used by the agent’s decision rules to determine which alternatives will be selected. We also present an algorithm that implements a choice function based on our formalization. Finally, we complete our presentation by introducing formal results that relate the proposed framework with approaches of classical decision theory.

This paper proposes the use of an argumentation framework with recursive attacks to address a trust model in a collaborative open multi-agent system. Our approach is focused on scenarios where agents share information about the credibility (informational trust) they have assigned to their peers. We will represent informants’ credibility through credibility objects which will include not only trust information but also the informant source. This leads to a recursive setting where the reliability of certain credibility information depends on the credibility of other pieces of information that should be subject to the same analysis. Credibility objects are maintained in a credibility base which can have information in conflict. In this scenario, we will formally show that our proposal will produce a partially ordered credibility relation; such relation contains the information that can be justified by an argumentation process.

This work formalizes an informant-based structured argumentation approach in a multi-agent setting, where the knowledge base of an agent may include information provided by other agents, and each piece of knowledge comes attached with its informant. In that way, arguments are associated with the set of informants corresponding to the information they are built upon. Our approach proposes an informant-based notion of argument strength, where the strength of an argument is determined by the credibility of its informant agents. Moreover, we consider that the strength of an argument is not absolute, but it is relative to the resolution of the conflicts the argument is involved in. In other words, the strength of an argument may vary from one context to another, as it will be determined by comparison to its attacking arguments (respectively, the arguments it attacks). Finally, we equip agents with the means to express reasons for or against the consideration of any piece of information provided by a given informant agent. Consequently, we allow agents to argue about the arguments’ strength through the construction of arguments that challenge (respectively, defeat) or are in favour of their informant agents.

El conocimiento histórico –entendido como un proceso metacognitivo de asimilación constructiva sobre el pasado para explicar fenómenos– comporta un análisis del impacto y la transcendencia de determinados acontecimientos y procesos históricos, en cuya comprensión y valoración influye el concepto de relevancia histórica. Desde esta perspectiva es necesario implementar propuestas de evaluación sólidas, vinculadas al desarrollo competencial. El objetivo de este estudio es diseñar una guía de caracterización de los instrumentos evaluativos –actividades y ejercicios– más utilizados por el profesorado de Historia, con el fin de optimizar los procesos de evaluación de esta competencia mediante una serie de descriptores estructurales, competenciales y transferenciales. Estos indicadores de pertinencia pueden marcar el camino de aquellos docentes que deseen perfeccionar su manera de evaluar lo históricamente determinante. En conclusión, este innovador planteamiento supone un proceso de formación continua del profesorado que contribuye a la mejora de la calidad educativa.

El siglo XXI ha visto aflorar ultranacionalismos propios del pasado. El neonazismo tiene su razón de ser en el ataque inequívoco contra las minorías, a partir de una ideología racista, xenófoba y excluyente, que tiene como máxima expresión la negación de muchos de los genocidios históricos. Cada vez más partidos de todo el mundo defienden algunas de estas ideas y modelos de pensamiento en sus programas, suavizándolas a la par que van ganando peso en las instituciones e instaurando su discurso e idearios en la ciudadanía. El objetivo de este estudio es analizar la efectividad de una propuesta docente sobre el Holocausto en estudiantes de la etapa de Bachillerato. Para ello, se ha creado un plan de acción que fomenta la indagación y pretende desarrollar una conciencia que promueva el pensamiento ético y critico de estos hechos. Los resultados son muy positivos y confirman que el Holocausto puede y debe trabajarse con documentos históricos, fuentes de internet y otros recursos que potencian el trabajo en grupo y la motivación hacia el conocimiento y la crítica de estos hechos, preservando la memoria histórica.

This work considers the formalisation of the merging process of stratified belief bases, where beliefs are stored in different layers or strata. Their strata are ranked, following a total order, employing the value the agent using the belief base assigns to these beliefs. The agent uses an argumentation mechanism to reason from the belief base and obtain the final inferences. We present two ways of merging stratified belief bases: the first is defined by merging two strata without belief preservation, and the second by merging two strata with belief preservation. For these operators, as layers merge, it is possible that some information has to be deleted from the stratum to maintain consistency. The latter merge operator will be defined as performing their actions so that information removed from the stratum is preserved after the merging by moving it to a stratum containing information perceived as having a lower value and where those beliefs may trigger a new revision, possibly starting a cascading effect.

The practice of physical activity (PA) contributes to the prevention of chronic diseases such as obesity, metabolic syndrome or cardiovascular diseases, being also directly related to the individual’s physical fitness. Therefore, it is necessary to measure and monitoring the levels of PA in childhood and adolescence, since it may be useful to describe their current health status and the association with physical fitness, as well as to reveal putative consequences in the future. Within the educational field, it has been shown that physical education (PE) classes are a favorable context for the creation of healthy physical-sports habits and self-determined motivation could be a key for explaining the level of PA practice. For this reason, the purpose of this research was to study the mediating role of integrated regulation (IR) on the relationship between PA and physical fitness in children and adolescents. A total of 325 students between 11 and 14 years old participated in the study. The level of PA was estimated through the specific Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children (PAQ-C), while motivation and IR were measured by using the Perceived Locus of Causality scale (PLOC-2). In addition, physical fitness was measured through the Eurofit fitness battery of tests, composed of three body composition measures and seven tests of different physical capacities. The physical fitness score showed no differences when genders were compared. After regression analysis, the resulti...

From the fifties on, the region of middle Magdalena (Colombia), is going to live some specitic circunstantes that will provide their people with mecanisms in order to resolve a chain of vital contlicts they were involved in. Their voices will sound and will lead us, through their personal stories, to the widest scerie in their region and country. The human experiences that will be exposed here can be considered as "lives in straist". They will be existentes marked by suffering, extreme violente, frighteness in short, but also by generousness and the wish of living with dignity

In this paper we propose an approach to multi-source belief revision where the trust or credibility assigned to informant agents can be revised. In our proposal, the credibility of each informant represented as a strict partial order among informant agents, will be maintained in a repository called credibility base. Upon arrival of new information concerning the credibility of its peers, an agent will be capable of revising this strict partial order, changing the trust assigned to its peers accordingly. Our goal is to formalize a set of change operators over the credibility base: expansion, contraction, prioritized, and non-prioritized revision. These operators will provide the capability of dynamically modifying the credibility of informants considering the reliability of the information. This dynamics will reflect a new perception of trust assigned to the informant, or extend the set of informants by admitting the addition of new informant agents.

Tras los graves acontecimientos sufridos en 2020 por la aparición del Covid y su consiguiente confinamiento, los centros educativos se vieron obligados a modificar sus metodologías tradicionales para llevar a cabo un adecuado proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje.El objetivo principal de este estudio es conocer el grado de alfabetización digital de la comunidad educativa, es decir, si profesores, alumnos y padres de alumnos tienen las habilidades suficientes para ser competentes en el uso de las nuevas tecnologías adaptadas al entorno educativo.

Over the last decade, several extensions of Dung’s Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) have been introduced in the literature. Some of these extensions concern the nature of the attack relation, such as the consideration of recursive attacks, whereas others incorporate additional interactions, such as a support relation. Recently, the Attack–Support Argumentation Framework (ASAF) was proposed, which accounts for recursive attacks and supports, attacks to supports and supports to attacks, at any level, where the support relation is interpreted as necessity. Currently, to determine the accepted elements of an ASAF (which may be arguments, attacks, and supports) it is required to translate such an ASAF into a Dung’s AF. In this work, we provide a formal characterization of acceptability semantics directly on the ASAF, without requiring such a translation. We prove that our characterization is sound since it satisfies different results from Dung’s argumentation theory; moreover, we formally show that the approach proposed here for addressing acceptability is equivalent to the preexisting one, in which the ASAF was translated into an AF. Also, we formalize the relationship between the ASAF and other frameworks on which it is inspired: the Argumentation Framework with Recursive Attacks (AFRA) and the Argumentation Framework with Necessities (AFN).

Desde el punto de vista sociológico, una de las ambivalencias más visibles de la crisis de la modernidad consiste en la persistencia de la violencia en las sociedades civilizadas y su constante presencia a lo largo de todo el proceso de modernización. Este artículo realiza, en primer lugar, una exposición de los argumentos de Elias sobre estas cuestiones y los denominados “procesos de decivilización”. Posteriormente, se muestran las revisiones críticas que ha recibido, así como las reelaboraciones conceptuales recientes sobre este tema que permiten una comprensión más fecunda de esta “cara oculta” de la Modernidad

Returning to sport after the sports injury is a difficult decision because it’s multicausal and the fact that a rash decision can result in numerous negative consequences. Given the importance of psychological variables for the correct rehabilitation of the injured athlete and his or her optimal return to sports practice, there seems to be little information on this subject. In this sense, the objective is to determine the relationship between the subjective psychological disposition of the athlete in the process of Return to Play with the type of mood profile and his mental health. This is based on the fact that each athlete evaluates his or her recovery differently and has different levels of anxiety, depression, and stress. For this purpose, four athletes participated in the study. Two males and two females from the sports of indoor soccer and soccer, who had just returned to sports after a moderate or severe injury. The average age was 24.25 years. Various measurements were taken after practices and after matches, to assess mood, psychological readiness, anxiety, stress, and depression. The results confirm Morgan’s iceberg profile and the influence that subjective psychological perceptions and assessed emotional states have on athletes’ incorporation into their sports practice with a guarantee of success.