Towards modelling dialectic and eristic argumentation on the social web

Modelling arguments on the social web is a key challenge for those studying computational argumentation. This is because formal models of argumentation tend to assume dialectic and logical argument, whereas argumentation on the social web is highly eristic. In this paper we explore this gap by bringing together the Argument Interchange Format (AIF) and the Semantic Interlinked Online Communities (SIOC) project, and modelling a sample of social web arguments. This allows us to explore which eristic effects cannot be modelled, and also to see which features of the social web are missing.We show that even in our small sample, from YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, eristic effects (such as playing to the audience) were missing from the final model, and that key social features (such as likes and dislikes) were also not represented. This suggests that both eristic and social extensions need to be made to our models of argumentation in order to deal effectively with the social we

ArguBlogging:an application for the Argument Web

In this paper, we present a software tool for ‘ArguBlogging’, which allows users to construct debate and discussions across blogs, linking existing and new online resources to form distributed, structured conversations. Arguments and counterarguments can be posed by giving opinions on one’s own blog and replying to other bloggers’ posts. The resulting argument structure is connected to the Argument Web, in which argumentative structures are made semantically explicit and machine-processable. We discuss the ArguBlogging tool and the underlying infrastructure and ontology of the Argument Web

Bridging the specification protocol gap in argumentation

As multi-agent systems (MAS) have become more mature and systems in general have become more distributed, it is necessary for those who want to build large scale systems to consider, in some computational depth, how agents can communicate in large scale, complex and distributed systems. Currently, some MAS systems have been developed to use an abstract specification language for argumentation. This as a basis for agent communication; to provide effective decision support for agents and yield better agreements. However, as we build complete MAS that involve argumentation, there is a need to produce concrete implementations in which these abstract specifications are realised via protocols coordinating agent behaviour. This creates a gap between standard argument specification and deployment of protocols. This thesis attempts to close this gap by using a combination of automated synthesis and verification methods. More precisely, this thesis proposes a means of moving rapidly from argument specification to protocol implementation using an extension of the Argument Interchange Format (AIF is a generic specification language for argument structure) called a Dialogue Interaction Diagram (DID) as the dialogue game specification language and the Lightweight Coordination Calculus (LCC is an executable specification language used for coordinating agents in open systems) as an implementation language. The main contribution of this research is to provide approaches for enabling developers of dialogue game argumentation systems to use specification languages (in our case AIF/DID) to generate agent protocol systems that are capable of direct implementation on open infrastructures (in our case LCC)