Gaming argumentation framework (GAF): Pfizer or AstraZeneca Vaccine of The COVID-19 as a case study

Abstract

Dung’s argumentation frameworks (AF) were introduced in the last century it works with the justification of the argument. This framework analyzes attacks of arguments, it works away on the characteristics of arguments structures and words was used in the attack between each other, etc. These properties make this model attractive as it decreases most of the complexities included when applying the argumentation system. This system can be applied to different states such as to evaluate the arguments or with the supported argument to be defense and attacked arguments. In addition, the group of experts may be making argumentation about some cases. In the latter scenario, agents with potentially dissimilar arguments and/or opinions are used to evaluate the arguments, allowing for the consideration of several sets of arguments and attack relations. This framework is extended to propose a new system called gaming argumentation framework (GAF). It helps to make a decision about the current problem by making claims and attack determination to the arguments, then putting the result of these claims and attack determination to the game theory with two players to achieve the final results that help the decision-maker to decide about the current problem. Finally, compare this framework with other frameworks, and provide an example to explain how the proposed framework performs its intended purpose, where decision making is very important in the medical field therefore this paper taking the confusion on the COVID-19 vaccines as a case study to solve Pfizer or AstraZeneca problem and make the decision about this case.