L. Amgoud, L. Bodenstaff, M. Caminada, P. Mcburney, S. Parsons et al., Final review and report on formal argumentation system. deliverable d2. 6, pp.6-002307, 2006.

L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol, A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, vol.34, issue.1/3, pp.197-215, 2002.
DOI : 10.1023/A:1014490210693

[. Amgoud, C. Cayrol, M. Lagasquie-schiex, and P. Livet, On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'08), pp.1062-1093, 2008.
DOI : 10.1002/int.20307

L. Amgoud, F. Dupin-de-saint-cyragm85-]-carlos, E. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson, An axiomatic approach for persuasion dialogs On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions, Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI'13), pp.618-625, 1985.

L. Amgoud and N. Maudet, Strategical considerations for argumentative agents (preliminary report) Modelling dialogues using argumentation, Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS'00), pp.399-407, 2000.

J. L. Austin, How to do things with words, volume 1955, p.104, 1975.

R. Baumann, What does it take to enforce an argument? minimal change in abstract argumentation, Proceedings of the Nineteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'12), pp.127-132, 2012.

R. Baumann and G. Brewka, Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results [BC03] Trevor Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA'10), pp.75-86, 2003.

[. Bisquert, C. Cayrol, F. Dupin-de-saint-cyr, and M. , Change in Argumentation Systems: Exploring the Interest of Removing an Argument, Scalable Uncertainty Management, pp.275-288, 2011.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-23963-2_22

[. Bisquert, C. Cayrol, F. Dupin-de-saint-cyr, and M. , Characterizing change in argumentation by using duality between addition and removal, p.54, 2012.

[. Baroni, M. Caminada, and M. Giacomin, An introduction to argumentation semantics, The Knowledge Engineering Review, vol.93, issue.04, pp.365-410, 2011.
DOI : 10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_2

[. Booth, M. Caminada, M. Podlaszewski, and I. Rahwan, Quantifying disagreement in argument-based reasoning, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AA- MAS'12), pp.493-500, 2012.

P. Baroni and M. Giacomin, Semantics of Abstract Argument Systems, In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, vol.18, pp.25-44, 2009.
DOI : 10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_2

R. Booth, D. Gabbay, S. Kaci, T. Rienstra, and L. Van-der-torre, Abduction and dialogical proof in argumentation and logic programming, Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR'14), p.59, 2014.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/lirmm-01082080

G. Boella, D. Gabbay, A. Perotti, L. Van-der-torre, and S. Villata, Conditional Labelling for Abstract Argumentation, Proceedings of the Workshop on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA'11), pp.232-248, 2011.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_15

[. Boella, D. Gabbay, L. Van-der-torre, and S. Villata, Support in abstract argumentation, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA'10), pp.111-122, 2010.

[. Barringer, D. Gabbay, and J. Woods, Temporal Dynamics of Support and Attack Networks: From Argumentation to Zoology, Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning, pp.59-98, 2005.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-540-32254-2_5

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.
DOI : 10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00071-6

[. Boella, S. Kaci, and L. Van-der-torre, Dynamics in Argumentation with Single Extensions: Abstraction Principles and the Grounded Extension, Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU'09), pp.107-118, 2009.
DOI : 10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00866393

[. Boella, S. Kaci, L. Van-der-torre-emilia-bellucci, A. R. Lodder, and J. Zeleznikow, Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Attack refinement and the grounded extension Integrating artificial intelligence , argumentation and game theory to develop an online dispute resolution environment, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems Proceedings of the Sixteenth IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI'04), pp.1213-1214, 2004.

E. Bonzon and N. Maudet, On the Outcomes of Multiparty Persuasion, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'11), pp.47-54, 2011.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-33152-7_6
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01273221

G. Brewka and S. Woltran, Abstract dialectical frameworks, Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'10), pp.102-111, 2010.

D. Cartwright and K. Atkinson, Using computational argumentation to support e-participation. Intelligent Systems, IEEE, vol.24, issue.5, pp.42-52, 2009.

M. Caminada, On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation, Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA'06), pp.111-123, 2006.
DOI : 10.1007/11853886_11

M. Clavel, F. Durán, S. Eker, P. Lincoln, N. Martí-oliet et al., The Maude System, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications (RTA'99), pp.240-243, 1999.
DOI : 10.1007/3-540-48685-2_18

[. Cayrol, F. Dupin-de-saint-cyr, and M. , Revision of an argumentation system, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'08), pp.124-134, 2008.

[. Cayrol, F. Dupin-de-saint-cyr, and M. , Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol.38, issue.53CLS05a, pp.49-84, 2010.

C. Cayrol and M. , Gradual Valuation for Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks, Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (EC- SQARU'05), pp.366-377, 2005.
DOI : 10.1007/11518655_32

C. Cayrol and M. , Graduality in argumentation, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), vol.23, issue.23, pp.245-297, 2005.

C. Cayrol and M. , On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks, Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU'05), pp.378-389, 2005.
DOI : 10.1007/11518655_33

C. Cayrol and M. , Weighted Argumentation Systems: A Tool for Merging Argumentation Systems, 2011 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp.629-632, 2011.
DOI : 10.1109/ICTAI.2011.99

C. Sylvie-coste-marquis, S. Devred, M. Konieczny, P. Lagasquie-schiex, and . Marquis, On the merging of Dung's argumentation systems, Artificial Intelligence, vol.171, issue.10-15, pp.740-753, 2007.
DOI : 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.012

S. Coste-marquis, C. Devred, and P. Marquis, Constrained argumentation frameworks, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'06), pp.112-122, 2006.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00121160

S. Coste-marquis, S. Konieczny, J. Mailly, and P. Marquis, On the revision of argumentation systems: Minimal change of arguments statuses, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'14), pp.52-61, 2014.

S. Coste-marquis, S. Konieczny, P. Marquis, and M. Ouali, Weighted attacks in argumentation frameworks, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'12), pp.593-597, 2012.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00866890

M. Caminada and G. Pigozzi, On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol.152, issue.2, pp.64-102, 2011.
DOI : 10.1007/s10458-009-9116-7

[. Caminada, G. Pigozzi, and M. Podlaszewski, Manipulation in group argument evaluation International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems Combining textual entailment and argumentation theory for supporting online debates interactions, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'11CV12] Elena Cabrio and Serena Villata Proceedings of the Fiftieth Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Short Papers, pp.1127-1128, 2011.

M. Davies, Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter?, Higher Education, vol.3, issue.3, pp.279-301, 2011.
DOI : 10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6

C. Devred, S. Doutre, C. Lefèvre, and P. Nicolas, Dialectical proofs for constrained argumentation, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA'10), pp.159-170, 2010.

[. Dubois, M. Grabish, H. Prade, and P. Smets, Using the transferable belief model and a qualitative possibility theory approach on an illustrative example: The assessment of the value of a candidate, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol.1975, issue.11, pp.1245-1272, 2001.
DOI : 10.1002/int.1058
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01185821

E. Paul, A. Dunne, P. Hunter, S. Mcburney, M. Parsons et al., Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results, Artificial Intelligence, vol.175, issue.25, pp.457-486, 2011.

S. Doutre, A. Herzig, and L. Perrussel, A dynamic logic framework for abstract argumentation Extending argumentation to make good decisions, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'14), 2014. 58 [DMA09] Yannis Dimopoulos, Pavlos Moraitis, and Leila Amgoud Algorithmic Decision Theory, pp.225-236, 2009.

D. Phan-minh, G. Dignum, and . Vreeswijk, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games Towards a testbed for multi-party dialogues, Advances in Agent Communication, pp.321-358, 1995.

[. E?ilmez, J. Martins, and J. Leite, Extending Social Abstract Argumentation with Votes on Attacks, Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA'13), pp.16-31, 2013.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-54373-9_2

[. Evripidou, F. T. , and F. Toni, Argumentation and voting for an intelligent user empowering business directory on the web Quaestio-it. com: a social intelligent debating platform, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems, pp.33333-349, 2012.

T. Finin, R. Fritzson, D. Mckay, and R. Mcentire, KQML as an agent communication language, Proceedings of the third international conference on Information and knowledge management , CIKM '94, pp.456-463, 1994.
DOI : 10.1145/191246.191322

D. Gabbay, Fibring Argumentation Frames, Studia Logica, vol.93, issue.2-3, pp.231-295, 2009.
DOI : 10.1007/s11225-009-9217-y

N. Gilbert and R. Conte, Artificial Societies: the computer simulation of social life, p.169, 1995.

D. Gabbay and O. Rodrigues, A Numerical Approach to the Merging of Argumentation Networks, Proceedings of the Thirteenth Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA'12), pp.195-212, 2012.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-32897-8_14

A. J. Garcia and G. R. Simari, Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, pp.95-138, 2004.
DOI : 10.1017/S1471068403001674

C. Hadjinikolis, Y. Siantos, S. Modgil, E. Black, and P. Mcburney, Opponent modelling in persuasion dialogues Real arguments are approximate arguments, Proceedings of the Twenty-third international Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'13) Proceedings of the Twenty-second Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'07), pp.164-170, 2007.

A. Hunter, Some foundations for probabilistic abstract argumentation, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA'12), pp.117-128, 2012.

A. Hunter, A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments, JV99] Hadassa Jakobovits and Dirk Vermeir, pp.47-81, 1999.
DOI : 10.1016/j.ijar.2012.08.003

E. Kontarinis, N. Bonzon, A. Maudet, L. Perotti, S. Van-der-torre et al., Rewriting rules for the computation of goal-oriented changes in an argumentation system Regulating multiparty persuasion with bipolar arguments: Discussion and examples Picking the right expert to make a debate uncontroversial, Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA'13) Proceedings of the Journées Francophones sur les Modèles Formels d'Interactions (MFI'11) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA'12), pp.51-68, 2011.

[. Kontarinis, E. Bonzon, N. Maudet, and P. Moraitis, Empirical Evaluation of Strategies for Multiparty Argumentative Debates, Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA'14), pp.105-122, 2014.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-319-09764-0_7

[. Kontarinis, E. Bonzon, N. Maudet, and P. Moraitis, On the use of target sets for move selection in multi-agent debates, Proceedings of the Twenty-first European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'14), pp.1047-1048, 2014.

[. Kaci and C. Labreuche, Arguing with Valued Preference Relations, Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU'11), pp.62-73, 2011.
DOI : 10.1016/0004-3702(92)90069-A

A. Kakas and P. Moraitis, Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents, Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems , AAMAS '03, pp.883-890, 2003.
DOI : 10.1145/860575.860717

A. Kakas and P. Moraitis, Adaptive agent negotiation via argumentation Antonis Kakas, Paolo Mancarella, and Phan Minh Dung. The acceptability semantics for logic programs Layered strategies and protocols for argumentation-based agent interaction, Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'06) Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP) [KMM05] Antonis Kakas, Nicolas Maudet, and Pavlos Moraitis Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, pp.384-391, 1994.

A. Kontarinis, E. Perotti, N. Bonzon, L. Maudet, S. Van-der-torre et al., Using rewriting rules to compute successful modifications of an argumentation system, Proceedings of the Septièmes Journées de l'Intelligence Artificielle Fondamentale (JIAF'13), pp.180-189, 2013.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00956607

W. Kunz and H. W. , Issues as elements of information systems, 1970.

A. Kakas and F. Toni, Computing argumentation in logic programming, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol.9, issue.4, pp.515-562, 1999.
DOI : 10.1093/logcom/9.4.515

M. David, R. Kreps, and . Wilson, Reputation and imperfect information, Journal of Economic Theory, vol.27, issue.2 11, pp.253-279, 1982.

J. Leite and J. Martins, Social abstract argumentation, Proceedings of the Twenty-second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJ- CAI'11), pp.2287-2292, 2011.

H. Li, N. Oren, and T. J. Norman, Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks, Proceedings of the Workshop on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA'12), pp.1-16, 2012.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_1

[. Modgil and M. Caminada, Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks, Argumentation in artificial intelligence, pp.105-129, 2009.
DOI : 10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_6

D. C. Mart?nez, A. J. Garc?a, and G. R. Simari, An abstract argumentation framework with varied-strength attacks, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'08), pp.135-144, 2008.

S. Modgil, Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks, Artificial Intelligence, vol.173, issue.9-10, pp.901-934, 2009.
DOI : 10.1016/j.artint.2009.02.001

S. Modgil, Revisiting Abstract Argumentation Frameworks, Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA'13), p.34, 2013.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-54373-9_1

P. Mcburney, S. Mcburney, S. Parsons, and M. Wooldridge, Dialogue games for agent argumentation Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation, Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'02) Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA?08), pp.261-280, 2002.

]. H. Nii86 and . Nii, The blackboard model of problem solving and the evolution of blackboard architectures. AI magazine [NK09] Victor Noël and Antonis Kakas. Gorgias-c: Extending argumentation with constraint solving, Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp.38-40, 1986.

J. Martin, A. Osborne, E. Rubinstein, S. Oikarinen, and . Woltran, A course in game theory Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks On the relevance of utterances in formal inter-agent dialogues, Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'07), pp.111-55, 1985.

C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-tyteca, The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation, 1969.

H. Prakken, Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol.15, issue.6, pp.1009-1040, 2005.
DOI : 10.1093/logcom/exi046

H. Prakken, Formal systems for persuasion dialogue, The Knowledge Engineering Review, vol.21, issue.02, pp.163-188, 2006.
DOI : 10.1017/S0269888906000865

H. Prakken, An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments, Argument & Computation, vol.4, issue.2, pp.93-124, 2010.
DOI : 10.1016/S0004-3702(96)00041-0

H. Prakken and G. Sartor, Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, vol.53, issue.1993, pp.25-75, 1997.
DOI : 10.1080/11663081.1997.10510900

[. Rahwan and K. Larson, Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation, Proceedings of the Twenty-third Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'08), pp.150-155, 2008.

[. Rahwan and K. Larson, Argumentation and game theory Heuristics in argumentation: A game theory investigation, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA'08), pp.321-339, 2008.

C. Reed and G. Rowe, ARAUCARIA: SOFTWARE FOR ARGUMENT ANALYSIS, DIAGRAMMING AND REPRESENTATION, International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, vol.13, issue.04, pp.961-979, 2004.
DOI : 10.1142/S0218213004001922

[. Rahwan and F. Tohmé, Collective argument evaluation as judgement aggregation Opponent models with uncertainty for strategic argumentation, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'10) Proceedings of the Twenty-third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'13), pp.417-424, 2010.

E. E. Ryan, Aristotle's theory of rhetorical argumentation, p.17, 1984.

[. Salah, F. Coenen, and D. Grossi, Extracting debate graphs from parliamentary transcripts, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL '13, pp.121-130, 2013.
DOI : 10.1145/2514601.2514615

R. John and . Searle, Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language, p.104, 1969.

O. Scheuer, F. Loll, N. Pinkwart, B. M. Mclaren-fernando, A. Tohmé et al., Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art, Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems, pp.43-102, 2008.
DOI : 10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x

M. Thimm and A. J. García, Classification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks Bottom-up argumentation, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'10) Proceedings of the Workshop on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA'11), pp.1247-1254, 2010.

[. Villata, G. Boella, and L. Van-der-torre, Attack semantics for abstract argumentation, Proceedings of the Twenty-second international Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'11), pp.406-413, 2011.

D. W. , D. Walton, and E. Krabbe, The three bases for the enthymeme: A dialogical theory, Commitment in dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, pp.361-379, 1995.

M. Wooldridge, An introduction to multiagent systems, 2009.

[. Walton, C. Reed, and F. Macagno, Argumentation schemes, p.127, 2008.

*. *. Operators, Attack Sign Sign -> Atom [ctor] . op PRO_ : Argument -> Atom [ctor] . op CON_ : Argument -> Atom [ctor] . op _hits_ : Attack Attack -> Atom [ctor] . op _hitsArg_ : Attack Argument -> Atom, op isNotHit_ : Attack -> Atom [ctor] . op isNotHitArg_ : Argument -> Atom [ctor] . op _and_ : Conjunct Conjunct -> Conjunct

*. and *. Rule, The attack Y is on the system. crl [expand_X1*_with_Y0*] : (X 1 *) and (Y hits X) => (X 1 *) and (Y 0 *) if not (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, The attack Y is removable. crl [expand_X1*_with_Y-#_Y0#] : (X 1 *) and (Y hits X) => (X 1 *) and (Y -#) and (Y 0 #) if (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, The attack Y is addable. crl [expand_X1*_with_Y0#] : (X 1 *) and (Y hits X) => (X 1 *) and (Y 0 #) if (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, The attack Y is on the system. crl [expand_X0*_with_Y1*] : (X 0 *) and (Y hits X) => APPENDIX B. MAUDE'S LISTING (X 0 #) and (Y 1 *) if not (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, The attack Y is addable. crl [expand_X0*_with_Y+#_Y1*] : (X 0 *) and (Y hits X) => (X 0 #) and (Y + #) and (Y 1 *) if (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, Sign **, the attack Y is on the system. crl [expand_X?**_with_Y?, p.if not (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, Sign **, the attack Y is addable. crl [expand_X?**_with_Y+#_Y?, p.if (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, Sign *, the attack Y is on the system. crl [expand_X?*_with_Y?, p.if not (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, Sign *, the attack Y is on the system. crl [expand_X?*_with_Y0*] : (X ? *) and (Y hits X) => (X ? *) and (Y 0 *) if not (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, Sign *, the attack Y is removable. crl [expand_X?*_with_Y-#_Y0#] : (X ? *) and (Y hits X) => (X ? *) and (Y -#) and (Y 0 #) if (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, Sign *, the attack Y is addable. crl [expand_X?*_with_Y0#] : (X ? *) and (Y hits X) => (X ? *) and (Y 0 #) if (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, Sign *, the attack Y is addable. crl [expand_X?*_with_Y?#] : (X ? *) and (Y hits X) => (X ? *) and (Y ? #) if (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, PRO, and the attack Y is on the system. crl [expand_PRO_with_Y0*] : PRO(d) and (Y hitsArg d) => PRO(d) and (Y 0 *) if not (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, PRO, and the attack Y is removable. crl [expand_PRO_with_Y-#_Y0#] : PRO(d) and (Y hitsArg d) => PRO(d) and (Y -#) and (Y 0 #) if (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, PRO, and the attack Y is addable. crl [expand_PRO_with_Y0#] : PRO(d) and (Y hitsArg d) => PRO(d) and (Y 0 #) if (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, CON, and the attack Y is on the system. crl [expand_CON_with_Y1*] : CON(d) and (Y hitsArg d) => (Y 1 *) if not (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, CON, and the attack Y is addable. crl [expand_CON_with_Y+#_Y1*] : CON(d) and (Y hitsArg d) => (Y + #) and (Y 1 *) if (substr(string

*. and *. Rule, CON, and the attack Y is on the system. crl [expand_CON_with_Y?**] : CON(d) and (Y hitsArg d) => (Y ? **) if not (substr(string