Quantitative Argumentation Debates with Votes for Opinion Polling

Opinion polls are used in a variety of settings to assess the opinions of a population, but they mostly conceal the reasoning behind these opinions. Argumentation, as understood in AI, can be used to evaluate opinions in dialectical exchanges, transparently articulating the reasoning behind the opinions. We give a method integrating argumentation within opinion polling to empower voters to add new statements that render their opinions in the polls individually rational while at the same time justifying them. We then show how these poll results can be amalgamated to give a collectively rational set of voters in an argumentation framework. Our method relies upon Quantitative Argumentation Debate for Voting (QuAD-V) frameworks, which extend QuAD frameworks (a form of bipolar argumentation frameworks in which arguments have an intrinsic strength) with votes expressing individuals’ opinions on arguments

ArguCast: a system for online multi-forecasting with gradual argumentation

Judgmental forecasting is a form of forecasting which employs (human) users to make predictions about specied future events. Judgmental forecasting has been shown to perform better than quantitative methods for forecasting, e.g. when historical data is unavailable or causal reasoning is needed. However, it has a number of limitations, arising from users’ irrationality and cognitive biases. To mitigate against these phenomena, we leverage on computational argumentation, a eld which excels in the representation and resolution of conicting knowledge and human-like reasoning, and propose novel ArguCast frameworks (ACFs) and the novel online system ArguCast, integrating ACFs. ACFs and ArguCast accommodate multi-forecasting, by allowing multiple users to debate on multiple forecasting predictions simultaneously, each potentially admitting multiple outcomes. Finally, we propose a novel notion of user rationality in ACFs based on votes on arguments in ACFs, allowing the ltering out of irrational opinions before obtaining group forecasting predictions by means commonly used in judgmental forecasting

New York Times Coverage of Presidential Campaigns

This study investigates New York Times coverage of the Democratic and Republican general presidential campaigns from 1952–2000. Content analysis reveals that the most common topic of campaign coverage was horse race. Discussion of the candidates' character was more common than discussion of their policy positions (even though candidates discuss policy more than character in campaign messages). The statements in these stories were more often negative than positive (despite the fact that candidates' messages are more positive than negative). Reporters are the most common sources for the statements in these articles, followed by candidates, supporters, and others.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

Deliberation in Practice: Deliberative Theory, News Media, and Political Conversation

While much scholarly attention has been paid to deliberation as a set of procedures used to achieve democratic goals of individual autonomy and mutually beneficial policy outcomes, few studies have asked to what extent contemporary American society resembles a deliberative democracy. In order to assess the prospects for deliberative democracy, everyday political conversation, its influences and its consequences are examined. The dissertation establishes a “reasonable ideal” of deliberation by which a democracy may be judged. The reasonable ideal has five elements: conversation, disagreement, information, the common interest, and the accommodation of uncertainty. Results show that American democracy is deliberative in some ways but not in others. Political conversation is disproportionately the pastime of the elite, and discussion across lines of difference, an essential element of deliberation, is extremely rare. Contrary to the assumptions of deliberative theory, conversation produces an increase in the belief that citizens are motivated by self-interest. However, the discussions that occur do succeed in producing learning and reducing uncertainty about political issues. While media use serves deliberative ends by spurring some to discuss politics and providing information, it also increases the likelihood that others will view political discussion as unpleasantly argumentative. News media thus encourage deliberation for some and discourage it for others

Deliberation in Mobile Messaging Application: A Case in Hong Kong

Considering the increasing penetration of Internet and mobile technologies, we can foresee that more online debates and political discussions, such as online deliberations, will occur in the future. However, prior research does not illustrate or provide empirical evidence to support steps that that online deliberation should take. To address this gap, we conduct a case study on Project ThunderGo, an online deliberation campaign related to the 2016 Hong Kong Legislative Election. Via analyzing data obtained from their deliberation groups, the relevant news articles, and the election results, we establish a four-stage building, engineering, arriving, and reaching (BEAR) model of online deliberation and provide some practical implications for future deliberation host. The model and implications articulate ICT’s role in addressing complicated and multi-facet social problems

Introduction to Deliberation, democracy, and civic forums: Improving equality and publicity

Innovative forums that integrate citizen deliberation into policy making are revitalizing democracy in many places around the world. Yet controversy abounds over whether these forums ought to be seen as authentic sources of public opinion and how they should fit with existing political institutions. How can civic forums include less powerful citizens and ensure that their perspectives are heard on equal terms with more privileged citizens, officials, and policy experts? How can these fragile institutions communicate citizens\u27 policy preferences effectively and legitimately to the rest of the political system? Deliberation, Democracy, and Civic Forums proposes creative solutions for improving equality and publicity, which are grounded in new theories about democratic deliberation, a careful review of research and practice in the field, and several original studies. This book speaks to scholars, practitioners, and sponsors of civic engagement, public management and consultation, and deliberative and participatory democracy. Focuses on new civic forums that are re-engaging citizens in democracy Includes original theory and research on civic deliberation and democracy Proposes creative solutions that allow disempowered citizens to participate equally in politics Illuminates how civic forums can play a more powerful role in the political syste

An Interleaving Semantics of the Timed Concurrent Language for Argumentation to Model Debates and Dialogue Games

Time is a crucial factor in modelling dynamic behaviours of intelligent agents: activities have a determined temporal duration in a real-world environment, and previous actions influence agents' behaviour. In this paper, we propose a language for modelling concurrent interaction between agents that also allows the specification of temporal intervals in which particular actions occur. Such a language exploits a timed version of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks to realise a shared memory used by the agents to communicate and reason on the acceptability of their beliefs with respect to a given time interval. An interleaving model on a single processor is used for basic computation steps, with maximum parallelism for time elapsing. Following this approach, only one of the enabled agents is executed at each moment. To demonstrate the capabilities of language, we also show how it can be used to model interactions such as debates and dialogue games taking place between intelligent agents. Lastly, we present an implementation of the language that can be accessed via a web interface. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).Comment: Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP

Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Making

International audienceIn this article, we propose an agent-based model of opinion diffusion and voting where influence among individuals and deliberation in a group are mixed. The model is inspired from social modeling, as it describes an iterative process of collective decision-making that repeats a series of interindividual influences and collective deliberation steps, and studies the evolution of opinions and decisions in a group. It also aims at founding a comprehensive model to describe collective decision-making as a combination of two different paradigms: argumentation theory and ABM-influence models, which are not obvious to combine as a formal link between them is required. In our model, we find that deliberation, through the exchange of arguments, reduces the variance of opinions and the proportion of extremists in a population as long as not too much deliberation takes place in the decision processes. Additionally, if we define the correct collective decisions in the system in terms of the arguments that should be accepted, allowing for more deliberation favors convergence towards the correct decisions

Referendums on EU matters

This study was commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament. It analyses the political and legal dynamics behind referendums on EU-related matters. It argues that we have entered a period of increasing political uncertainty with regard to the European project and that this new political configuration will both affect and be affected by the politics of EU-related referendums. Such referendums have long been a risky endeavour and this has been accentuated in the wake of the Great Recession with its negative ramifications for public opinion in the European Union. It is clear that referendums on EU matters are here to stay and will continue to be central to the EU’s future as they are deployed to determine the number of Member States within the EU, its geographical reach, its constitutional evolution and adherence to EU policies. Only now they have become an even riskier endeavour

Controlling the 2012 Republican primary debates : why the structure of the television moderators' questions matters

Viewership for televised presidential debates has grown in recent years. The debates involving the major party nominees remain the most-watched political events in American politics, and viewership for those held during the primary season are on the rise. During the 2012 Republican primary season, a record 20 debates were held. With millions watching the debates, they deserve scrutiny. The research on the effects of presidential debates up to this point has focused primarily on the first level of agenda setting related to questions and answers. This research expanded that work by considering the second level of agenda setting, or attribute agenda setting. Through qualitative discourse analysis of the questions and responses, as well as measuring the amount of screen time provided each candidate, this study found that cumulatively, the more time a candidate received to answer questions, the less uncertainty there was about that candidate among voters surveyed in a national poll. It also found that debate questions structured with attributes that challenge presidential candidates do not correlate with negative voter preference for them. In fact, the opposite holds true. Implications for debate viewers and organizers are discussed.Journalis