On computing explanations in argumentation

Copyright © 2015, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved.Argumentation can be viewed as a process of generating explanations. However, existing argumentation semantics are developed for identifying acceptable arguments within a set, rather than giving concrete justifications for them. In this work, we propose a new argumentation semantics, related admissibility, designed for giving explanations to arguments in both Abstract Argumentation and Assumption-based Argumentation. We identify different types of explanations defined in terms of the new semantics. We also give a correct computational counterpart for explanations using dispute forests

Exploring Current Practice of Using Technology to Support Collaborative Argumentation in Science Classrooms

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how middle school science teachers enact the practice of using technology to support collaborative argumentation in their science classroom. This study employed qualitative case study and drew on data sources of interviews and observations. This study identified two themes. Six teachers regarded scientific argumentation as an important science practice, but five of them integrated this practice into their science class without formally introducing it. All teachers integrated different forms of technology to engage students in scientific argumentation. In this study, the findings suggested there is a need to provide professional development for teachers to learn about scientific argumentation. The findings can be used as a basis for the design and development of professional development training experiences for in-servic

Empirical Evaluation of Abstract Argumentation: Supporting the Need for Bipolar and Probabilistic Approaches

In dialogical argumentation it is often assumed that the involved parties always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other, realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views when new and correct information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is sufficient to represent their opinions. Although it is natural to make these assumptions as a starting point for further research, removing them or even acknowledging that such removal should happen is more challenging for some of these concepts than for others. Probabilistic argumentation is one of the approaches that can be harnessed for more accurate user modelling. The epistemic approach allows us to represent how much a given argument is believed by a given person, offering us the possibility to express more than just three agreement states. It is equipped with a wide range of postulates, including those that do not make any restrictions concerning how initial arguments should be viewed, thus potentially being more adequate for handling beliefs of the people that have not fully disclosed their opinions in comparison to Dung's semantics. The constellation approach can be used to represent the views of different people concerning the structure of the framework we are dealing with, including cases in which not all relations are acknowledged or when they are seen differently than intended. Finally, bipolar argumentation frameworks can be used to express both positive and negative relations between arguments. In this paper we describe the results of an experiment in which participants judged dialogues in terms of agreement and structure. We compare our findings with the aforementioned assumptions as well as with the constellation and epistemic approaches to probabilistic argumentation and bipolar argumentation

Algorithms and Complexity Results for Persuasive Argumentation

The study of arguments as abstract entities and their interaction as introduced by Dung (Artificial Intelligence 177, 1995) has become one of the most active research branches within Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning. A main issue for abstract argumentation systems is the selection of acceptable sets of arguments. Value-based argumentation, as introduced by Bench-Capon (J. Logic Comput. 13, 2003), extends Dung's framework. It takes into account the relative strength of arguments with respect to some ranking representing an audience: an argument is subjectively accepted if it is accepted with respect to some audience, it is objectively accepted if it is accepted with respect to all audiences. Deciding whether an argument is subjectively or objectively accepted, respectively, are computationally intractable problems. In fact, the problems remain intractable under structural restrictions that render the main computational problems for non-value-based argumentation systems tractable. In this paper we identify nontrivial classes of value-based argumentation systems for which the acceptance problems are polynomial-time tractable. The classes are defined by means of structural restrictions in terms of the underlying graphical structure of the value-based system. Furthermore we show that the acceptance problems are intractable for two classes of value-based systems that where conjectured to be tractable by Dunne (Artificial Intelligence 171, 2007)

The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument

The paper starts from scepticism that all argumentation is dialogical or that all dialogue types are argumentation. The hypothesis is that the concepts of dialectic and dialogue are not isomorphic, at least as applied to argumentation. The paper will cover: (a) a review of the conceptions of dialectic and of dialogue in the argumentation literature, (b) an analysis of these concepts, (c) a critical assessment of the limits of the discussion of dialogue as a model for argumentation (d) a discussion of alternative models of argumentation, (e) an exploration of the implications of the proposed models for the relation between argument and rhetori

Civil Procedure as a Critical Discussion

This Article develops a model for analyzing legal dispute resolution systems as systems for argumentation. Our model meshes two theories of argument conceived centuries apart: contemporary argumentation theory and classical stasis theory. In this Article, we apply the model to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a proof of concept. Specifically, the model analyzes how the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure function as a staged argumentative critical discussion designed to permit judge and jury to rationally resolve litigants’ differences in a reasonable manner. At a high level, this critical discussion has three phases: a confrontation, an (extended) opening, and a concluding phase. Those phases are the umbrella under which discrete argumentation phases occur at points we call stases. Whenever litigants seek a ruling or judgment, they reach a stasis—a stopping or standing point for arguing procedural points of disagreement. During these stases, the parties make arguments that fall into predictable “commonplace” argument types. Taken together, these stock argument types form a taxonomy of arguments for all civil cases. Our claim that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure function as a system for argumentation is novel, as is our claim that civil cases breed a taxonomy of argument types. These claims also mark the beginning of a broader project. Starting here with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we embark on a journey that we expect to follow for several years (and which we hope other scholars will join), exploring our model’s application across dispute resolution systems and using it to make normative claims about those systems. From a birds-eye view, this Article also represents a short modern trek in a much longer journey begun by advocates in city states in and near Greece nearly 2500 years ago