Argumentation-based Proof for an Argument in a Paraconsistent Setting

The paradigm of argumentation has been used in the literature to as- sign meaning to knowledge bases in general, and logic programs in particular. With this paradigm, rules of logic program are viewed as encoding arguments of an agent, and the meaning of the program is determined by those arguments that somehow (depending on the specific semantics) can defend themselves from the attacks of others arguments, named acceptable arguments. In previous work we presented an argumentation based declarative semantics allowing paraconsistent reasoning and also dealing with sets of logic programs that argue and cooperate among each other. In this paper we focus on the properties of this semantics in what regards paraconsistency and propose a procedure for proving an argument according to that semantics.