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

Debating Technology for Dialogical Argument:Sensemaking, Engagement and Analytics

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

ArgumentBind - A Model for Implementing Argument Web Integrated Applications with Open and Linked Data

Online communication and collaboration tools are widely employed by users in order to express their opinions on a vast amount of subjects. These tools were not designed to accurately identify topics, nor to point out relationships between topic elements related to a given discussion. As it turns out, there is a staggering amount of user-contributed information generally available, and conversely, a huge challenge related to accurately pointing out featured topics and their intertwining relationships and sources. The main purpose of Argument Web is to define a rich, full-featured annotation model capable of storing relationships between topics and their sources. Given the availability of rich, interlinked data about a number of related subjects, Argument Web can potentially increase the quality of online discussions and the analysis of its components. However, there is still a reduced number of real-world applications based on these concepts. Even in well-known projects, there\u27s still a lack of exploration efforts related to the use of open and linked data. This paper presents an application model based on Argument Interchange Format (AIF) and state-of-the-art semantic Web technology. Its main contribution lies in the integration of external source information, linked data formats and data visualization aspects. The solution is then evaluated through a case-study related to the use of open and linked data on the field of public administration

CARBON a Web application and a RESTful API for argumentation

This thesis documents the development of Collaborative Argumentation Brought Online (CARBON). Collaborative Argumentation Brought Online (CARBON) aims to make abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) available via HTTP by providing a RESTful API and a JavaScript heavy application, that allows to use ADFs in a wiki context on top of that API. The thesis summarizes basic concepts of abstract argumentation using examples of Dung argumentation frameworks (AFs), bipolar argumentation frameworks (BAFs) and abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs). The advantages of using Haskell as a programming language for server side software are demonstrated by discussing central concepts of functional programming and how these influenced the design or our solutions and simplified the creation of a RESTful API. It is described, how argumentation can be embedded in a wiki, and how a mapping between wiki articles and statements can be established to enable users to create new content while still being able to work with ADFs. To simplify the creation of acceptance conditions, a custom approach to proof standards is presented that allows to translate a bipolar argumentation framework (BAF) with proof standards into a ADF

A Critical Discussion Game for Prohibiting Fallacies

The study of fallacies is at the heart of argumentation studies. In response to Hamblin’s devastating critique of the state of the theory of fallacies in 1970, both formal dialectical and informal approaches to fallacies developed. In the current paper, we focus on an influential informal approach to fallacies, part of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Central to the pragma-dialectical method for analysing and evaluating argumentative discourse is the ideal model of a critical discussion. In this discussion model, a dialectical perspective on argumentation is combined with a pragmatic take on communicative interaction. By formalising and computationally implementing the model of a critical discussion, we take a first step in the development of software to computationally model argumentative dialogue in which fallacies are prohibited along the pragmadialectical norms. We do this by defining the Critical Discussion Game, a formal dialogue game based on the pragma-dialectical discussion model, executable on an online user-interface which is part of a larger infrastructure of argumentation software

Sketching the vision of the Web of Debates

The exchange of comments, opinions, and arguments in blogs, forums, social media, wikis, and review websites has transformed the Web into a modern agora, a virtual place where all types of debates take place. This wealth of information remains mostly unexploited: due to its textual form, such information is difficult to automatically process and analyse in order to validate, evaluate, compare, combine with other types of information and make it actionable. Recent research in Machine Learning, Natural Language Processing, and Computational Argumentation has provided some solutions, which still cannot fully capture important aspects of online debates, such as various forms of unsound reasoning, arguments that do not follow a standard structure, information that is not explicitly expressed, and non-logical argumentation methods. Tackling these challenges would give immense added-value, as it would allow searching for, navigating through and analyzing online opinions and arguments, obtaining a better picture of the various debates for a well-intentioned user. Ultimately, it may lead to increased participation of Web users in democratic, dialogical interchange of arguments, more informed decisions by professionals and decision-makers, as well as to an easier identification of biased, misleading, or deceptive arguments. This paper presents the vision of the Web of Debates, a more human-centered version of the Web, which aims to unlock the potential of the abundance of argumentative information that currently exists online, offering its users a new generation of argument-based web services and tools that are tailored to their real needs