skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Debating Technology for Dialogical Argument: Sensemaking, Engagement, and Analytics

Published:12 June 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Debating technologies, a newly emerging strand of research into computational technologies to support human debating, offer a powerful way of providing naturalistic, dialogue-based interaction with complex information spaces. The full potential of debating technologies for dialogical argument can, however, only be realized once key technical and engineering challenges are overcome, namely data structure, data availability, and interoperability between components. Our aim in this article is to show that the Argument Web, a vision for integrated, reusable, semantically rich resources connecting views, opinions, arguments, and debates online, offers a solution to these challenges. Through the use of a running example taken from the domain of citizen dialogue, we demonstrate for the first time that different Argument Web components focusing on sensemaking, engagement, and analytics can work in concert as a suite of debating technologies for rich, complex, dialogical argument.

References

  1. Floris Bex, Thomas Gordon, John Lawrence, and Chris Reed. 2012. Interchanging arguments between Carneades and AIF. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’12). 390--397.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Floris Bex, John Lawrence, and Chris Reed. 2014. Generalising argument dialogue with the dialogue game execution platform. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’14). 141--152.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Floris Bex, John Lawrence, Mark Snaith, and Chris Reed. 2013a. Implementing the Argument Web. Communications of the ACM 56, 10, 951--989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Floris Bex, Sanjay Modgil, Henry Prakken, and Chris Reed. 2013b. On logical reifications of the argument interchange format. Journal of Logic and Computation 23, 5, 66--73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Katarzyna Budzynska, Mathilde Janier, Juyeon Kang, Chris Reed, Patrick Saint-Dizier, Manfred Stede, and Olena Yaskorska. 2014. Towards argument mining from dialogue. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’14). 185--196.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Martin W. A. Caminada, Walter A. Carnielli, and Paul E. Dunne. 2012. Semi-stable semantics. Logic and Computation 22, 5, 1207--1254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Carols Chesñevar, Jarred McGinnis, Sanjay Modgil, Iyad Rahwan, Chris Reed, Guillermo Simari, Matthew South, Gerar Vreeswijk, and Steven Willmott. 2006. Towards an argument interchange format. Knowledge Engineering Review 21, 4, 293--316. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Stephen Coleman and Giles Moss. 2016. Rethinking election debates: What citizens are entitled to expect. International Journal of Press/Politics 21, 1, 3--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Anna De Liddo and Simon Buckingham-Shum. 2014. New ways of deliberating online: An empirical comparison of network and threaded interfaces for online discussion. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Participation. 90--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Phan Minh Dung. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321--357. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Phan Minh Dung, Paolo Mancarella, and Francesca Toni. 2007. Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 171, 10--15, 642--674. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Uwe Egly, Sarah Alice Gaggl, and Stefan Woltran. 2008. ASPARTIX: Implementing argumentation frameworks using answer-set programming. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’08). 734--738. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Mennatallah El-Assady, Valentin Gold, Carmela Acevedo, Christopher Collins, and Daniel Keim. 2016. ConToVi: Multi-party conversation exploration using topic-space views. Computer Graphics Forum 35, 3, 431--440. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Stefan Ellmauthaler and Hannes Strass. 2014. The DIAMOND system for computing with abstract dialectical frameworks. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’14). 233--240.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Susan L. Epstein. 2015. Wanted: Collaborative intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 221, 36--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. FIPA. 1997. FIPA 97 Specification Part 2: Agent Communication Language. FIPA, Geneva, Switzerland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Thomas F. Gordon. 2011. The policy modelling tool of the IMPACT argumentation toolbox. In Proceedings of the Jurix Workshop on Modelling Policy-Making (MPM’11). 29--38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Thomas F. Gordon and Nikos Karacapilidis. 1997. The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, New York, NY, 10--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Thomas F. Gordon and Doulgas N. Walton. 2006. The Carneades argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’06). 195--207. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Iryna Gurevych, Eduard H. Hovy, Noam Slonim, and Benno Stein. 2016. Debating technologies (Dagstuhl Seminar 15512). Dagstuhl Reports 5, 12, 18--46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Charles L. Hamblin. 1970. Fallacies. Chaucher Press, Bungay, Suffolk, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Siddharth Jain, Archna Bhatia, Angelique Rein, and Eduard Hovy. 2014. A corpus of participant roles in contentious discussions. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14). 1751--1756.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Siddharth Jain and Eduard Hovy. 2013. Determining leadership in contentious discussions. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Social Multimedia Research (SMMR’13). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Mathilde Janier, John Lawrence, and Chris Reed. 2014. OVA+: An argument analysis interface. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’14). 463--464.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. N. R. Jennings, L. Moreau, D. Nicholson, S. D. Ramchurn, S. Roberts, T. Rodden, and A. Rogers. 2014. Human-agent collectives. Communications of the ACM 57, 12, 80--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Paul A. Kirschner, Simon J. Buckingham-Shum, and Chad S. Carr (Eds.). 2003. Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Springer-Verlag, London, UK. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Mark Klein and Luca Iandoli. 2008. Supporting collaborative deliberation using a large-scale argumentation system: The MIT Collaboratorium. MIT Sloan Research Paper. MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. John Lawrence, Floris Bex, and Chris Reed. 2012a. Dialogues on the Argument Web: Mixed initiative argumentation with Arvina. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’12). 513--514.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. John Lawrence, Floris Bex, Chris Reed, and Mark Snaith. 2012b. AIFdb: Infrastructure for the Argument Web. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’12). 515--516.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. John Lawrence and Chris Reed. 2016. Argument mining using argumentation scheme structures. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’16).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Ran Levy, Yonatan Bilu, Daniel Hershcovich, Ehud Aharoni, and Noam Slonim. 2014. Context dependent claim detection. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING’14). 1489--1500.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Marco Lippi and Paolo Torroni. 2015. Argumentation mining: State of the art and emerging trends. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 16, 2, 10:1--10:25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Peter McBurney and Simon Parsons. 2002. Dialogue games in multi-agent systems. Informal Logic 22, 3, 257--274.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Marie-Francine Moens. 2013. Argumentation mining: Where are we now, where do we want to be and how do we get there? In Proceedings of the 5th Forum on Information Retrieval Evaluation (FIRE’13). ACM, New York, NY, 2:1--2:6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Simon Parsons and Nicholas Jennings. 1996. Negotiation through argumentation—a preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Multiagent Systems (ICMAS’96). 267--274.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Andreas Peldszus and Manfred Stede. 2013. From argument diagrams to argumentation mining in texts: A survey. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence 7, 1, 1--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Andreas Peldszus and Manfrede Stede. 2015. Joint prediction in MST-style discourse parsing for argumentation mining. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 938--948. http://aclweb.org/anthology/D15-1110Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Brian Plüss. 2016. Communication of debate aspects to different audiences. In Report of Dagstuhl Seminar 15512, Debating Technologies. Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Brian Plüss and Anna De Liddo. 2015. Engaging citizens with televised election debates through online interactive replays. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video (TVX’15). ACM, New York, NY, 179--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. John L. Pollock. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11, 481--518.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Henry Prakken. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1, 2, 93--124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Iyad Rahwan, Fouad Zablith, and Chris Reed. 2007. Laying the foundations for a world wide Argument Web. Artificial Intelligence 171, 897--921. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Andrew Ravenscroft, Simon McAlister, and Enzian Baur. 2006. Development, Piloting and Evaluation of InterLoc: An Open Source Tool Supporting Dialogue Games in Education. Final Project Report. Learning Technology Research Institute, London Metropolitan University, UK 8 Joint Information Systems Committee, Bristol, UK. http://www.interloc.org.uk/publications_files/ILoc_FR_Fc_v3.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Chris Reed. 1998. Dialogue frames in agent communication. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS’98). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 246--253. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Chris Reed and Glenn Rowe. 2004. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 13, 961--980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Chris Reed and Douglas Walton. 2005. Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11, 2, 173--188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Chris Reed, Simon Wells, Joseph Devereux, and Glenn Rowe. 2008. AIF+: Dialogue in the argument interchange format. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’08). 311--323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Ruty Rinott. 2016. The role of evidence in debates. In Report of Dagstuhl Seminar 15512, Debating Technologies. Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Ruty Rinott, Lena Dankin, Carlos Alzate Perez, Mitesh M. Khapra, Ehud Aharoni, and Noam Slonim. 2015. Show me your evidence—an automatic method for context dependent evidence detection. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 440--450. https://aclweb.org/anthology/D/D15/D15-1050Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. David Robertson. 2004. Multi-agent coordination as distributed logic programming. In Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference on Logic Programming. 416--430.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. John R. Searle. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. John R. Searle and Daniel Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Noam Slonim. 2016. What is debating technologies. In Report of Dagstuhl Seminar 15512, Debating Technologies. Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Mark Snaith, Floris Bex, John Lawrence, and Chris Reed. 2012. Implementing ArguBlogging. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’12). 511--512.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Mark Snaith, John Lawrence, and Chris Reed. 2010. Mixed initiative argument in public deliberation. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Online Deliberation (OD’10). 2--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Mark Snaith, Rolando Medellin, John Lawrence, and Chris Reed. 2016. Arguers and the Argument Web. In Argument Technologies, F. Paglieri, C. Reed, F. Bex, N. Green, and F. Grasso (Eds.). College Publications, London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Mark Snaith and Chris Reed. 2012. TOAST: Online ASPIC+ implementation. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’12). 509--510.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Christian Stab and Ivan Habernal. 2016a. Detecting argument components and structures. In Report of Dagstuhl Seminar 15512, Debating Technologies. Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Christian Stab and Ivan Habernal. 2016b. Existing resources for debating technologies. In Report of Dagstuhl Seminar 15512, Debating Technologies. Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Yuqing Tang, Timothy J. Norman, and Simon Parsons. 2009. A model for integrating dialogue and the execution of joint plans. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 883--890. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Matthias Thimm. 2014. Tweety—a comprehensive collection of Java libraries for logical aspects of artificial intelligence and knowledge representation. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’14). 528--537. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Stephen E. Toulmin. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij, and Jean H. M Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer, Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Tim van Gelder. 2007. The rationale for rationale. Law, Probability and Risk 6, 1--4, 23--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Gerard A. Vreeswijk. 1997. Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90, 225--279. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Marilyn A. Walker, Pranav Anand, Jean E. Fox, Rob Abbott, and Joseph King. 2012. A corpus for research on deliberation and debate. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12). 812--817.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Douglas N. Walton. 1984. Logical Dialogue—Games and Fallacies. University Press of America, Lanham, MD.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Douglas N. Walton and Erik C. W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Simon Wells and Chris A. Reed. 2012. A domain specific language for describing diverse systems of dialogue. Journal of Applied Logic 10, 4, 309--329.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. John H. Wigmore. 1931. The Principles of Judicial Proof (2nd ed.). Little, Brown 8 Co., Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Debating Technology for Dialogical Argument: Sensemaking, Engagement, and Analytics

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
            ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 17, Issue 3
            Special Issue on Argumentation in Social Media and Regular Papers
            August 2017
            201 pages
            ISSN:1533-5399
            EISSN:1557-6051
            DOI:10.1145/3106680
            • Editor:
            • Munindar P. Singh
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2017 Owner/Author

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 12 June 2017
            • Accepted: 1 October 2016
            • Revised: 1 September 2016
            • Received: 1 January 2016
            Published in toit Volume 17, Issue 3

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!