Advertisement

Abstract

Online social platforms, e-commerce sites and technical fora support the unfolding of informal exchanges, e.g. debates or discussions, that may be topic-driven or serendipitous. We outline a methodology for analysing these exchanges in computational argumentation terms, thus allowing a formal assessment of the dialectical validity of the positions debated in or emerging from the exchanges. Our methodology allows users to be engaged in this formal analysis and the assessment, within a dynamic process where comments, opinions, objections, as well as links connecting them, can all be contributed by users.

Keywords

Objection Relation Argument Scheme Argumentation Framework Argumentation Semantic Argumentation Frame 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bondarenko, A., Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93(1-2), 63–101 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buckingham Shum, S.: Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 argumentation. In: Hunter, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008). IOS Press (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dung, P.M., Toni, F., Mancarella, P.: Some design guidelines for practical argumentation systems. In: Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Simari, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010), vol. 216, pp. 183–194. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artif. Intell. 170, 114–159 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.) Argumentation in AI, pp. 199–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Egly, U., Gaggl, S.A., Woltran, S.: ASPARTIX: Implementing Argumentation Frameworks Using Answer-Set Programming. In: Garcia de la Banda, M., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 734–738. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaertner, D., Toni, F.: On computing arguments and attacks in assumption-based argumentation. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Special Issue on Argumentation Technology 22(6), 24–33 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heras, S., Atkinson, K., Botti, V., Grasso, F., Julian, V., McBurney, P.: How argumentation can enhance dialogues in social networks. In: Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Simari, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010), vol. 216, pp. 267–274. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rahwan, I., Madakkatel, M.I., Bonnefon, J.F., Awan, R.N., Abdallah, S.: Behavioural experiments for assessing the abstract argumentation semantics of reinstatement. Cognitive Science 34(8), 1483–1502 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., Reed, C.: Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artificial Intelligence 171, 897–921 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesca Toni
    • 1
  • Paolo Torroni
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.DEISUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations