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.
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Floris Bex, John Lawrence, Mark Snaith, and Chris Reed. 2013a. Implementing the Argument Web. Communications of the ACM 56, 10, 951--989. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- Martin W. A. Caminada, Walter A. Carnielli, and Paul E. Dunne. 2012. Semi-stable semantics. Logic and Computation 22, 5, 1207--1254. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Phan Minh Dung, Paolo Mancarella, and Francesca Toni. 2007. Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 171, 10--15, 642--674. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- Susan L. Epstein. 2015. Wanted: Collaborative intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 221, 36--45. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- FIPA. 1997. FIPA 97 Specification Part 2: Agent Communication Language. FIPA, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Iryna Gurevych, Eduard H. Hovy, Noam Slonim, and Benno Stein. 2016. Debating technologies (Dagstuhl Seminar 15512). Dagstuhl Reports 5, 12, 18--46.Google Scholar
- Charles L. Hamblin. 1970. Fallacies. Chaucher Press, Bungay, Suffolk, UK.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Peter McBurney and Simon Parsons. 2002. Dialogue games in multi-agent systems. Informal Logic 22, 3, 257--274.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- John L. Pollock. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11, 481--518.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Henry Prakken. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1, 2, 93--124.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Iyad Rahwan, Fouad Zablith, and Chris Reed. 2007. Laying the foundations for a world wide Argument Web. Artificial Intelligence 171, 897--921. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Chris Reed and Glenn Rowe. 2004. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 13, 961--980.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- David Robertson. 2004. Multi-agent coordination as distributed logic programming. In Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference on Logic Programming. 416--430.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- John R. Searle. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- John R. Searle and Daniel Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Stephen E. Toulmin. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Tim van Gelder. 2007. The rationale for rationale. Law, Probability and Risk 6, 1--4, 23--42.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Gerard A. Vreeswijk. 1997. Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90, 225--279. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- Douglas N. Walton. 1984. Logical Dialogue—Games and Fallacies. University Press of America, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- John H. Wigmore. 1931. The Principles of Judicial Proof (2nd ed.). Little, Brown 8 Co., Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Index Terms
Debating Technology for Dialogical Argument: Sensemaking, Engagement, and Analytics
Recommendations
Using Argumentative Structure to Interpret Debates in Online Deliberative Democracy and eRulemaking
Special Issue on Argumentation in Social Media and Regular PapersGovernments around the world are increasingly utilising online platforms and social media to engage with, and ascertain the opinions of, their citizens. Whilst policy makers could potentially benefit from such enormous feedback from society, they first ...
Three Senses of "Argument"
Computable Models of the LawIn AI approaches to argumentation, different senses of argument are often conflated. We propose a three-level distinction between arguments, cases, and debates. This allows us to modularise issues into separate levels and identify systematic relations ...
Using enthymemes in an inquiry dialogue system
AAMAS '08: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems - Volume 1A common assumption for logic-based argumentation is that an argument is a pair (Φ, α) where Φ is a minimal subset of the knowledgebase such that Φ is consistent and Φ entails the claim α. However, real arguments (i.e. arguments presented by humans) ...






Comments