{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02286902286902287, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006237006237006237, 'mean_word_length': 5.694444444444445, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Contradiction in Argumentation Frameworks

We present a theory of argumentation that can deal with contradiction within an argumentation framework, thus solving a problem posed in [1]. By representing logic programs as sets of interacting arguments, we can apply our results for general argumentation frameworks to logicprogramming semantics. This yields a new semantics for logic programs that properly extends traditional approaches such as stable [2] and wellfounded [3] models.