Supporting Argumentation Schemes in Argumentative Dialogue Games

Open access

Abstract

This paper reports preliminary work into the exploitation of argumentation schemes within dialogue games. We identify a property of dialogue games that we call “scheme awareness” that captures the relationship between dialogue game systems and argumentation schemes. Scheme awareness is used to examine the ways in which existing dialogue games utilise argumentation schemes and consequently the degree with which a dialogue game can be used to construct argument structures. The aim is to develop a set of guidelines for dialogue game design, which feed into a set of Dialogue Game Description Language (DGDL) extensions in turn enabling dialogue games to better exploit argumentation schemes.

[Amgoud et al., 2000] Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., and Parsons, S. (2000). Modeling Dialogues Using Argumentation. In Durfee, E. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, pp. 31-38.

[Atkinson et al., 2004] Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., and McBurney, P. (2004).

Justifying Practical Reasoning. In Rahwan, I., Moraitis, P., and Reed, C., editors, First International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Sys- tems.

[Atkinson et al., 2006] Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., and McBurney, P. (2006).

Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese, 152(2), pp. 157-206.

[Bench-Capon, 1998] Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1998). Specification and implemen- tation of toulmin dialogue game. In Proceedings of JURIX 98, pp. 5-20.

[Bench-Capon and Prakken, 2010] Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and Prakken, H. (2010).

Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artificial Intel- ligence and Law, 18(2), pp. 153-174.

[Bench-Capon et al., 2011] Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Prakken, H., and Visser, W. (2011). Argument schemes for two-phase democratic deliberation. In Pro- ceedings of the 13th International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 2011), pp. 21-30.

[Bench-Capon et al., 2013] Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Prakken, H., Wyner, A., and Atkinson, K. (2013). Argument schemes for reasoning about legal cases. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence and Law (ICAIL 2013), pp. 13-22, Rome, Italy.

[Carnap, 1947] Carnap, R. (1947). On the application of inductive logic. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 8(1), pp. 133-148.

[Chesnevar et al., 2006] Chesnevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., and Willmott, S. (2006).

Towards an argument interchange format. Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), pp. 293-316.

[Girle, 1993] Girle, R. A. (1993). Dialogue And Entrenchment. In Proceedings Of The 6th Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Symposium, pp. 185-189.

[Girle, 1994] Girle, R. A. (1994). Knowledge Organized And Disorganized. Proceed- ings of the 7th Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Symposium, pp. 198-203. [Girle, 1996] Girle, R. A. (1996). Commands in dialogue logic. Practical Reasoning: International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, Springer Lecture Notes in AI, 1085, pp. 246-260.

[Hamblin, 1970] Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. Methuen and Co. Ltd.

[Katzav et al., 2004] Katzav, J., Reed, C., and Rowe, G. (2004). Argument research corpus. In Practical Applications in Language and Computers (Proceedings of the 2003 Conference), pp. 229-239.

[McBurney and Parsons, 2002] McBurney, P. and Parsons, S. (2002). Dialogue games in multi-agent systems. Informal Logic, 22(3), pp. 257-274. [Moore and Hobbes, 1996] Moore, D. and Hobbes, D. (1996). Computational uses of philosophical dialogue theories. Informal Logic, 18(2 and 3), pp. 131-163.

[Parsons et al., 1998] Parsons, S., Sierra, C., and Jennings, N. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3), pp. 261-292.

[Pollock, 1995] Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person, MIT Press.

[Prakken et al., 2013] Prakken, H., Wyner, A., Bench-Capon, T., and Atkinson, K. (2013). A formalisation of argumentation schemes for legal case-based rea- soning in aspic+ (to appear). Journal of Logic and Computation,

[Rahwan et al., 2007] Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., and Reed, C. (2007). Towards large scale argumentation support on the semantic web. In Proceedings of AAAI-07, pp. 1446-1451.

[Ravenscroft and Matheson, 2002] Ravenscroft, A. and Matheson, P. (2002). De- veloping and evaluating dialogue games for collaborative e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, pp. 93-101.

[Ravenscroft et al., 2009] Ravenscroft, A.,Wells, S., Sagar,M., and Reed, C. (2009).

Mapping persuasive dialogue games onto argumentation structures. In Pro- ceedings of the Symposium on Persuasive Technology and Digital Behaviour Intervention hosted at the AISB Convention.

[Reed and Rowe, 2004] Reed, C. and Rowe, G. (2004). Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 13(04), pp. 961-979.

[Reed andWalton, 2004] Reed, C. andWalton, D. (2004). Towards a formal and im- plemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. In Rah- wan, I., Moraitis, P., and Reed, C., editors, First International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems.

[Reed and Wells, 2007] Reed, C. and Wells, S. (2007). Dialogical argument as an interface to complex debates. IEEE Intelligent Systems Journal: Special Issue on Argumentation Technology, 22(6), pp. 60-65.

[Reed et al., 2010] Reed, C., Wells, S., Budzynska, K., and Devereux, J. T. (2010). Building arguments with argumentation: the role of illocutionary force in computational models of argument. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010).

[Reed et al, 2008] Reed, C., Wells, S., Rowe, G. W. A., and Devereux, J. (2008). Aif+: Dialogue in the argument interchange format. In 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008).

[Reed et al., 2011] Reed, C., Wells, S., Snaith, M., Budzynska, K., and Lawrence, J. (2011). Using an argument ontology to develop pedagogical tool suites.\ In Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Tools for Teaching Logic (TICTTL 2011).

[Saint-Dizier, 2012] Saint-Dizier, P. (2012). Processing natural language arguments with the platform. Journal of Argument and Computation, 3(1), pp. 49-82.

[Toulmin, 1958] Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses Of Argument, Cambridge University Press.

[Walton et al., 2008]Walton, D., Reed, C., and Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.

[Walton, 1984] Walton, D. N. (1984). Logical Dialogue-Games And Fallacies. Uni- versity Press Of America.

[Walton and Krabbe, 1995] Walton, D. N. and Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commit- ment in Dialogue. SUNY series in Logic and Language. State University of New York Press.

[Wells, 2007] Wells, S. (2007). Formal Dialectical Games in Multiagent Argumen- tation, University of Dundee. [Wells and Reed, 2012] Wells, S. and Reed, C. (2012). A domain specific language for describing diverse systems of dialogue. Journal of Applied Logic, 10(4), pp. 309-329.

[Wirth, 1977] Wirth, N. (1977). What can we do about the unnecessary diversity of notation for syntactic definitions? Communications of the ACM, 20(11), pp. 822-823.

[Wyner and Bench-Capon, 2007] Wyner, A. Z. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2007). Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In Proceedings of Jurix 2007, pp. 139-149.

[Wyner et al., 2011]Wyner, A. Z., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and Atkinson, K. (2011).

Towards formalising argumentation about legal cases. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on AI and Law, pp. 1-10.

[Yuan and Wells, 2013] Yuan, T. and Wells, S. (2013). Protocl: Specifying dialogue games using uml and ocl. In Grasso, F., and Green, N., and Reed, C., editors, Thirteenth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA13), pp. 74-85.

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

The Journal of University of Bialystok

Journal Information


Cite Score 2017: 0.28

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.136
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.293

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 214 214 22
PDF Downloads 74 74 12