An empirical study of argumentation schemes in deliberative dialogue

Publisher PD

Missing Phases of Deliberation Dialogue for Real Applications

Models of deliberative dialogue are fundamental for developing autonomous systems that support human practical reasoning. However, we must consider whether these existing models are able to capture the complexity and richness of natural deliberation for developing real applications. In real contexts, circumstances relevant to the decision can change rapidly. In this paper, we introduce an extension to today\u27s leading model of deliberation dialogue to capture dynamic changes of circumstances during dialogue. Moreover, in natural deliberation, a dialogue may be successful even if a decision on what to do has not been made. A set of criteria is proposed to address the problem of when to close o the practical reasoning phase of dialogue. We then discuss some initial efforts to introduce those characteristics within an existing model of deliberation for agent collaboration. We believe that our extended model of dialogue may represent that richness of natural deliberative dialogue that is yet to be addressed in existing models of agent deliberatio

Norms of public argumentation and the ideals of correctness and participation

Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interactions that generate and justify reasonable public policies. Adopting an argumentation-theoretic perspective, we survey the norms that should govern public argumentation and address some of the complexities that scholarly treatments have identified. Our focus is on norms associated with the ideals of correctness and participation as sources of a politically legitimate deliberative outcome. In principle, both ideals are mutually coherent. If the information needed for a correct deliberative outcome is distributed among agents, then maximising participation increases information diversity. But both ideals can also be in tension. If participants lack competence or are prone to biases, a correct deliberative outcome requires limiting participation. The central question for public argumentation, therefore, is how to strike a balance between both ideals. Rather than advocating a preferred normative framework, our main purpose is to illustrate the complexity of this theme

Argumentation and design deliberation: a mutual relationship

Design deliberation refers to the process of thoughtfully weighing options, before making a design decision. This process is strongly related to argumentation, not only because of the well-known relation between argumentation and deliberation, but also due to characteristics of the design process. However, no structural model of team design deliberation exists to guide designers’ practice. This paper checks the hypothesis of inter-dependence between argument structures and group decision-making struc-ture as expressed through prescribed deliberation stages

Deliberative Democracy and Complex Diversity. From Discourse Ethics to the Theory of Argumentation.

362 p.Can democracy accommodate contemporary diverse and complex societies? Is deliberation an appropiate means for these ends? Even in the face of violent conflict? What is the role of citizens? The central objetive of this thesis is to critically analyse the relationsship between complex diversity (Tully 2008, Kraus 2012) and deliberatibe democracy /Habermas 1996) from a systemic perspective (Masnbrige and Parkinson 2012). Thinking identity as complex diversity detaches identity from dichotomous categorisations either as public of private, civic or ethnic and, moral or political

The Dimensions of Argumentative Texts and Their Assessment

The definition and the assessment of the quality of argumentative texts has become an increasingly crucial issue in education, classroom discourse, and argumentation theory. The different methods developed and used in the literature are all characterized by specific perspectives that fail to capture the complexity of the subject matter, which remains ill-defined and not systematically investigated. This paper addresses this problem by building on the four main dimensions of argument quality resulting from the definition of argument and the literature in classroom discourse: dialogicity, accountability, relevance, and textuality (DART). We use and develop the insights from the literature in education and argumentation by integrating the frameworks that capture both the textual and the argumentative nature of argumentative texts. This theoretical background will be used to propose a method for translating the DART dimensions into specific and clear proxies and evaluation criteria

The Epistemology of Anger in Argumentation

While anger can derail argumentation, it can also help arguers and audiences to reason together in argumentation. Anger can provide information about premises, biases, goals, discussants, and depth of disagreement that people might otherwise fail to recognize or prematurely dismiss. Anger can also enhance the salience of certain premises and underscore the importance of related inferences. For these reasons, we claim that anger can serve as an epistemic resource in argumentation

Towards a richer model of deliberation dialogue : closure problem and change of circumstances

This research was partially supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Insight Grant 435-2012-0104. This research was also partially supported by the award made by the RCUK Digital Economy program to the dot.rural Digital Economy Hub at the University of Aberdeen; award ref. : EP/G066051/1. Further refinements of this work were supported by the SICSA PECE scheme.Models of deliberative dialogue are fundamental for developing autonomous systems that support human practical reasoning. The question discussed in this paper is whether existing models are able to capture the complexity and richness of natural deliberation. In real-world contexts, circumstances relevant to the decision can change rapidly. We reflect on today's leading model of deliberation dialogue and we propose an extension to capture how newly exchanged information about changing circumstances may shape the dialogue.Moreover, in natural deliberation, a dialogue may be successful even if a decision on what to do has not been made. A set of criteria is proposed to address the problem of when to close off the practical reasoning phase of dialogue. We discuss some measures for evaluating the success of a dialogue after closure and we present some initial efforts to introduce the new deliberation features within an existing model of agent dialogue. We believe that our extended model of dialogue may contribute to representing that richness of natural deliberative dialogue that is yet to be addressed in existing models of agent deliberation.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Speech Acts and Burden of Proof in Computational Models of Deliberation Dialogue

We argue that burden of proof (BoP) of the kind present in persuasion does not apply to deliberation. We analyze existing computational models showing that in deliberation agents may answer a critique but there is no violation of the protocol if they choose not to. We propose a norm-­‐‑governed dialogue where BoP in persuasion is modeled as an obligation to respond, and permissions capture the different types of constraint observed in deliberation