Attack principles in sequent-based argumentation theory

Attack principles have been introduced in semi-abstract argumentation frameworks and, in the present work, we interpret them in sequent-based argumentation frameworks. Thus, we investigate the role of minimality and consistency of the support set of an argument. Through the notion of preservation of strength, we introduce a formal criterion to sort out the attack principles; isolate the more "acceptable" ones, i.e. those easier to justify; and recover a new argumentative semantics for the non-classical logic that arises from dropping the rules $(\neg , r)$ , $(\land , r)$ and $(\supset , l)$ from Gentzen's classical sequent calculus for classical logic $\textsf{LK}$ .