ArgSemSAT@AIFdb connects to the ArgSemSAT API, developed by Federico Cerutti, Mauro Vallati and Massimiliano Giacomin to evaluate AIFdb nodesets under Dung-style semantics. For details see the main reference:

Federico Cerutti, Massimiliano Giacomin and Mauro Vallati. ArgSemSAT: Solving Argumentation Problems using SAT. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2014), IOS Press, 2014.

Result for Nodeset 11399 under grounded semantics

Acceptable conclusions (Hide)
the green belt per say is not a particularly effective way of protecting nature.

it's quite damaging.

I agree that we have a fundamental problem with the nature of our development industry in this country

then demand that people commute thirty miles into town to work.

the people who actually need homes - including the quarter of a million people who are homeless in this country - are very, very distant third in that pecking order.

Firstly, the planning system, I think, does have strong tools for protection nature.

nature does not need to justify it's worth at all.

That cannot be an environmentally sustainable or sensible position.

nature needs to be XXX to justify it's worth

they cannot live close to where the jobs are, because green belt policies insist that we build homes off and on greenfield sites beyond the green belt,

Millions of people commute every day across the greenbelt, twice. That is adding hugely to the carbon impact on ... of the economy,

how do we as a society regulate the amount of space that we use for homes, versus other uses?

Things like national parks, areas of outstanding national beauty ... these are all outstanding policies for protecting the really really valuable bits of nature ...

It is intrinsic.

I agree that the development sector needs urgent reform to provide the homes that we actually need, not just profits.

is far too predicated on delivering the highest possible returns, first to the landowners and second to developers, with the community

as we've seen it so far, all it's gone to do really is line the pockets of the developers themselves.

So, I would like to bring you back onto this kind of point about our obligation to nature now that we know more.

we are ensuring that the benefits of development are actually going to go to the people that need it by XXX

we know that we don't continue doing the damage that we have so far by XXX
Unacceptable or undecided conclusions (Hide)
Nature needs to justify it's worth

Abstract Argumentation Framework (Hide)

Structured Argumentation Framework (Hide)