Abstract The issue of how a semantics should deal with self-attacking arguments was always a subject of debate among argumentation scholars. A consensus exists for extension-based semantics because those arguments are always rejected (as soon as the semantics in question respects conflict-freeness). In case of gradual semantics, the question is more complex, since other criteria are taken into account. In this paper, we check the impact of those arguments by using a principle-based approach. Principles like self-contradiction and strong self-contradiction prescribe how to deal with self-attacking arguments. We show that they are incompatible with the well-known equivalence principle (which is satisfied by almost all the existing gradual semantics), as well as with some other principles (e.g. counting). This incompatibility was not studied until now and the class of semantics satisfying self-contradiction is under-explored. In the present paper, we explore that class of semantics. We show links and incompatibilities between several principles. We define a new general oriented argumentation semantics that satisfies (strong) self-contradiction and a maximal number of compatible principles. We introduce an iterative algorithm to calculate our semantics and prove that it always converges. We also provide a characterization of our semantics. Finally, we experimentally show that our semantics is computationally efficient.

A large number of evaluation methods, called semantics, have been proposed in the literature for assessing strength of arguments. This paper investigates their equivalence. It argues that for being equivalent, two semantics should have compatible evaluations of both individual arguments and pairs of arguments. The first requirement ensures that the two semantics judge an argument in the same way, while the second states that they provide the same ranking of arguments. We show that the two requirements are completely independent. The paper introduces three novel relations between semantics based on their rankings of arguments: weak equivalence, strong equivalence and refinement. They state respectively that two semantics do not disagree on their strict rankings; the rankings of the semantics coincide; one semantics agrees with the strict comparisons of the second and it may break some of its ties. We investigate the properties of the three relations and their links with existing principles of semantics, and study the nature of relations between most of the existing semantics. The results show that the main extensions semantics are pairwise weakly equivalent. The gradual semantics we considered are pairwise incompatible, however some pairs are strongly equivalent in case of flat graphs including Max-based (Mbs) and Euler-based (Ebs), for which we provide full characterizations in terms respectively of Fibonacci numbers and the numbers of an exponential series. Furthermore, we show that both semantics (Mbs, EMbs) refine the grounded semantics, and are weakly equivalent with the other extension semantics. We show also that in case of flat graphs, the two gradual semantics Trust-based and Iterative Schema characterize the grounded semantics, making thus bridges between gradual semantics and extension semantics. Finally, the other gradual semantics are incompatible with extension semantics.