An argument Sample Clauses

An argument y AF rebuts an argument x AF if x and y are ar- guments for the same mapping but with different signs, e.g. if x and y are in the form x = ⟨G1, m, +⟩ and y = ⟨G2, m, −⟩, x counter-argues y and vice-versa. ¬ ¬ → Moreover, if an argument x supports an argument y, they form the argument (x y) that attacks an argument y and is attacked by argument x. When the set of such arguments and counter arguments have been produced, it is necessary for the agents to consider which of them they should accept. Given an argu- ment framework we can use definitions from [7] to define acceptability of an argument. ∈ ∈ ∈ ∈ ∈ ⟨ ⟩ ∈ ⟨ ⟩

An argument y AF rebuts an argument x AF if x and y are ar- guments for the same mapping but with different signs, e.g. if x and y are in the form x = (G1, m, +) and y = (G2, m, −), x counter-argues y and vice-versa. → Moreover, if an argument x supports an argument y, they form the argument (x ¬ ¬

An argument. ‘Agential-Centredness’ of Xxxxxxx’s Transcendental Realism and the Question of ‘Non-Agential’ This section reflects on mechanisms as tendencies and causal agents. It points out two key features in the account of ontological realism in early CR: the primary mode of things (or beings) is ‘implicit’, and it is ‘agential’. This reflection is crucial for the wider thesis because it enables us to argue the possibility and significance of ‘otherness’, particularly in the critical realist account of social reality, and to argue that this ‘otherness’ seems to produce a point of divergence between the Bhaskarian account of the transcendent, and the Trinitarian account of God in Christianity.