Base Logics in Argumentation

There are a number of frameworks for modelling argumentation in logic. They incorporate a formal representation of individual arguments and techniques for comparing conflicting arguments. A common assumption for logic-based argumentation is that an argument is a pair 〈Φ, α〉 where Φ is a minimal subset of the knowledgebase such that Φ is consistent and Φ entails the claim α. We call the logic used for consistency and entailment, the base logic. Different base logics provide different definitions for consistency and entailment and hence give us different options for argumentation. This paper discusses some of the commonly used base logics in logic-based argumentation, and considers various criteria that can be used to identify commonalities and differences between them.