  In a previous publication, we introduced the core concepts of empathic agents
as agents that use a combination of utility-based and rule-based approaches to
resolve conflicts when interacting with other agents in their environment. In
this work, we implement proof-of-concept prototypes of empathic agents with the
multi-agent systems development framework Jason and apply argumentation theory
to extend the previously introduced concepts to account for inconsistencies
between the beliefs of different agents. We then analyze the feasibility of
different admissible set-based argumentation semantics to resolve these
inconsistencies. As a result of the analysis we identify the maximal ideal
extension as the most feasible argumentation semantics for the problem in
focus.
