@. Transitivity, Let us consider ?, ? 1 , ? 2 , ? 3 ? ?, such that ? 1 ? ? 2 and ? 2 ? ? 3 , there are four cases

*. If, Due to E5 and U9 again, ))] = ? then using E5 and U9, ?(1, 2) = ?(1) = ?(1, 2, 3)? [(?(? 1 ) ? ?(? 3 ))], hence ? 1 ? ?

@. Reflexivity, (? 1 ) |= ?(? 1 ), hence either ? 1

. @bullet-?-respects, ? 1 ) ? ?(? 2 ))]. Due to E3, since (?, ? 1 ), (? 2 ))] = ? or ? 2 ? [?(?) Due to U1, ? 1 ? [?(?)? T ?(? 1 )]. Hence using E5 and U9, [?(?)? T (?(? 1 ) ? ?(? 2 )) ? ?(? 1 )] = [?(?)? T (?(? 1 )] = {?1}. Contradiction, hence ? 1 ? ? 2

@. If, (. A. , and R. , then t 1 indirectly defends the unique element of t 2 in (A, R) (which is denoted by (A, R) |= t 1 ~~ t 2 ) if and only if, ) |= (t 1 t 2 ) ? (?y ((t 1 y) ? (y ~~ t 2 )))

T. 3. Given and T. ?. , U a set of authorized transitions, there exists an operator ? T satisfying E3, U4, E5, E8, U9 if and only if there is an assignment respecting T such that ?G ? ? U , ??, ? ? YALLA U , References [1] C. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. On the logic of theory change : partial meet contraction and revision functions, Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol.50, pp.510-530, 1985.

L. Amgoud, F. Dupin-de-saint-cyr, and . Bannay, Extracting the Core of a Persuasion Dialog to Evaluate Its Quality, European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU), pp.59-70, 2009.

L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol, Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks, Journal of Automated Reasoning, vol.29, issue.2, pp.125-169, 2002.

L. Amgoud and H. Prade, Using arguments for making and explaining decisions, Artificial Intelligence, vol.173, issue.3-4, pp.413-436, 2009.

P. Baroni, G. Boella, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, W. N. Leendert et al., On the Input/Output behavior of argumentation frameworks, Artificial Intelligence, vol.217, pp.144-197, 2014.

P. Baroni, M. Giacomin, and B. Liao, On topology-related properties of abstract argumentation semantics. A correction and extension to Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method, Artificial Intelligence, vol.212, pp.104-115, 2014.

R. Baumann, What does it take to enforce an argument? minimal change in abstract argumentation, 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.127-132, 2012.

R. Baumann and G. Brewka, Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results The Netherlands, The Netherlands, Proceeding of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp.75-86, 2010.

J. M. Trevor and . Bench-capon, Try to see it my way: Modelling persuasion in legal discourse, Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol.11, issue.10, pp.271-287, 1023.

P. Besnard and S. Doutre, Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments, 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning Proceedings, pp.59-64, 2004.

P. Besnard and A. Hunter, A logic-based theory of deductive arguments??????This is an extended version of a paper entitled ???Towards a logic-based theory of argumentation??? published in the Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'2000), Austin, TX, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000., Artificial Intelligence, vol.128, issue.1-2, pp.203-235, 2001.

P. Bisquert, C. Cayrol, F. Dupin-de-saint-cyr, and M. Bannay, Change in argumentation systems: exploring the interest of removing an argument (regular paper), International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM), pp.2011-2023, 2011.

P. Bisquert, C. Cayrol, F. Dupin-de-saint-cyr, and M. Bannay, Duality between Addition and Removal, Advances on Computational Intelligence, pp.219-229, 2012.

P. Bisquert, C. Cayrol, F. Dupin-de-saint-cyr, and M. Bannay, Characterizing change in abstract argumentation systems, Trends in Belief Revision and Argumentation Dynamics, pp.75-102

P. Bisquert and C. Cayrol, Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr Bannay, and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. Enforcement in argumentation is a kind of update (regular paper)

P. Bisquert, C. Cayrol, F. Dupin-de-saint-cyr, and M. Bannay, Goal-driven changes in argumentation: A theoretical framework and a tool. (regular paper ), International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), pp.588-595, 2013.

G. Boella, S. Kaci, and L. Van-der-torre, Dynamics in Argumentation with Single Extensions: Abstraction Principles and the Grounded Extension, 10th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, pp.107-118, 2009.

G. Boella, S. Kaci, and L. Van-der-torre, Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Attack refinement and the grounded extension, 8th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp.1213-1214, 2009.

B. Bonet and H. Geffner, Arguing for decisions: A qualitative model of decision making, Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp.98-105, 1996.

E. Bonzon and N. Maudet, On the Outcomes of Multiparty Persuasion, Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'11), pp.47-54, 2011.

R. Booth, S. Kaci, T. Rienstra, and L. Torre, A Logical Theory about Dynamics in Abstract Argumentation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.8078, pp.148-161, 2013.

C. Cayrol, F. Dupin-de-saint-cyr, and M. Bannay, Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol.38, pp.49-84, 2010.

M. Cordier and P. Siegel, Prioritized transitions for updates, ECSQARU, pp.142-150, 1995.

S. Coste-marquis, S. Konieczny, J. Mailly, and P. Marquis, On the revision of argumentation systems: Minimal change of argument statuses, International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR)

S. Coste-marquis, S. Konieczny, J. Mailly, and P. Marquis, A Translation-Based Approach for Revision of Argumentation Frameworks, Logics in Artificial Intelligence, pp.397-411, 2014.

S. Coste-marquis, S. Konieczny, J. Mailly, and P. Marquis, Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJ- CAI), pp.2876-2882, 2015.

S. Coste-marquis, C. Devred, and P. Marquis, Constrained argumentation frameworks, Proc. of KR, pp.112-122, 2006.

M. Diller, A. Haret, T. Linsbichler, S. Rümmele, and S. Woltran, An extension-based approach to belief revision in abstract argumentation, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.2926-2932, 2015.

S. Doutre, A. Herzig, and L. Perrussel, A Dynamic Logic Framework for Abstract Argumentation, International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp.62-71, 2014.

D. Dubois, F. Dupin-de-saint-cyr, H. Bannay, and . Prade, Update postulates without inertia (regular paper) In Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty, number 946 in LNAI, pp.162-170, 1995.

D. Phan-minh, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence, vol.77, issue.2, pp.321-358, 1995.

J. Fox and P. Mcburney, Decision making by intelligent agents: logical argument, probabilistic inference and the maintenance of beliefs and acts, 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pp.293-301, 2002.

M. Ghallab, D. Nau, and P. Traverso, Automated planning: theory and practice, 2004.

D. Grossi and W. Van-der-hoek, Audience-based uncertainty in abstract argument games, IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2013.

C. Hadjinikolis, S. Modgil, E. Black, P. Mcburney, and Y. Siantos, Opponent modelling in persuasion dialogues, Proceedings of the Twenty- Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2013), pp.164-170, 2013.

]. A. Herzig, On updates with integrity constraints In Belief Change in Rational Agents, 2005.

A. Herzig and O. Rifi, Propositional belief base update and minimal change, Artificial Intelligence, vol.115, issue.1, pp.107-138, 1999.

N. Karacapilidis and D. Papadias, Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system, Information Systems, vol.26, issue.4, pp.259-277, 2001.

H. Katsuno and A. O. Mendelzon, On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it, Proc. of the 2 nd Inter. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp.387-394, 1991.

H. Katsuno and A. O. Mendelzon, Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change, Artificial Intelligence, vol.52, issue.3, pp.263-294, 1991.

. Stephen-cole-kleene, Mathematical Logic, 1967.

L. Sombé, A glance at revision and updating in knowledge bases, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol.57, issue.1, pp.1-27, 1994.

B. Liao, L. Jin, and R. C. Koons, Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method, Artificial Intelligence, vol.175, issue.11, pp.1790-1814, 2011.

O. Martín, N. D. Moguillansky, M. A. Rotstein, A. J. Falappa, G. R. García et al., Argument theory change through defeater activation The Netherlands, The Netherlands, Proceeding of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010), pp.359-366, 2010.

E. Oikarinen and S. Woltran, Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks, Artificial Intelligence, vol.175, issue.14-15, pp.14-151985, 2011.

N. Oren, K. Atkinson, and H. Li, Group persuasion through uncertain audience modelling, Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2012, pp.350-357, 2012.

N. Oren and T. J. Norman, Arguing Using Opponent Models, Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, 6th International Workshop, pp.160-174, 2009.

H. Prakken, Formal systems for persuasion dialogue, The Knowledge Engineering Review, vol.21, issue.02, pp.163-188, 2006.

T. Rienstra, M. Thimm, and N. Oren, Opponent models with uncertainty for strategic argumentation, IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2013.

D. Nicolás, M. O. Rotstein, M. A. Moguillansky, A. J. Falappa, G. R. García et al., Argument theory change: Revision upon warrant, Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument, pp.336-347, 2008.

M. Thimm and A. J. García, Classification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks, 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2010), pp.1247-1254, 2010.

P. Hans, A. Van-ditmarsch, T. Herzig, and . Lima, Public announcements, public assignments and the complexity of their logic, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, vol.22, issue.3, pp.249-273, 2012.

S. Villata, G. Boella, D. M. Gabbay, L. Van-der-torre, and J. Hulstijn, A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, vol.1, issue.2, pp.1-4199, 2012.

D. Walton and E. C. Krabbe, Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY series in Logic and Language, 1995.

M. Winslett, Reasoning about action using a possible models approach, Proc. of the 7 th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.89-93, 1988.

M. Winslett, Updating Logical Databases, 1990.

M. Wooldridge, P. Mcburney, and S. Parsons, On the meta-logic of arguments, Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems , AAMAS '05, pp.560-567, 2005.

Z. Zhuang, Argument rejection and acceptance through attack abstractions, 2013. Séminaire " Belief Change and Argumentation in Multi-Agent Scenarios, Schloss Dagstuhl -Leibniz Center for Informatics