The Argument Web’s ultimate objective is to improve the quality of online argument and debate. Keeping in mind that evaluation of natural argument is philosophically thorny, it is possible to propose objective metrics through which to assess natural arguments, including, say, consensus about which arguments are best (one might disagree with an argument while still appreciating its merits); exhaustiveness, speed, volume of content, signal to noise, and structural complexity; argument richness (in terms of the range of argument types used); and dialogue richness (range of dialogical moves used).

Conclusion

The Argument Web represents the first technology linking debate, disagreement, and argument structures from a variety of tools applied in different domains. The approach has strong potential both academically and practically. Along with developer and user interest and increasing Argument Web resources, the academic community gains access to a valuable resource that, particularly for computer scientists, can function as a tes-tbed for new theories of argument-ac-ceptability applications and as a rich dataset with which to deploy new applications; for linguists and philosophers, it offers a unique corpus of discourse activity, replete with detailed annotation and commentary.

By solving theoretical problems involving how argument structures can be navigated and extended through dialogical processes, the Argument Web opens up a new class of application in which intuitive, dialogically based interfaces (such as Arvina and ArguBlogging) can be used to explore and improve large-scale debates. There is evidence19 that debate is a good way to navigate and support engagement with complex issues involving disagreement (such as abortion, climate change, and military intervention) that are not just important but that define our time. By supporting and facilitating engagement in debates (otherwise daunting, leading even to disengagement and disempowerment) the Argument Web promises to play not only a technological but an important societal role as well.

References

1. berners-lee, t., hendler, J., and lassila, o. the semantic Web. Scientific American 284, 5 (2001),

28–37.

2. bex, F., modgil, s., Prakken, h., and reed, C. on logical reifications of the argument Interchange Format.

Journal of Logic and Computation. aug. 2012; doi:

10.1093/logcom/exs033

3. bex, F. and reed, C. Dialogue templates for automatic argument processing. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 245 (2012), 366–377.

4. bizer, C., heath, t., and berners-lee, t. linked data: the story so far. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 5, 3 (2009), 1–22.

5. budzynska, k. and reed, C. the structure of ad hominem dialogues. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 245 (2012), 410–421.

6. Chesñevar, C., mcginnis, J., modgil, s., rahwan, I., reed, C., simari, g., south, m., Vreeswijk, g., and Willmott, s. towards an argument Interchange Format. Knowledge Engineering Review 21, 4 (2009),

293–316.

7. De liddo, a., sándor, Á., and buckingham shum, s. Contested collective intelligence: rationale, technologies, and a human-machine annotation study.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work 21, 4–5 (2012),

417–448.

8. de moor, a.D. and aakhus, m. argumentation support: From technologies to tools. Commun. ACM 49, 3 (mar.

2006), 93–98.

9. Dung, P.m. on the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n–person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 2 (1995), 321–357.

10. lawrence, J., snaith, m., bex, F.J., and reed, C.

Demonstration papers on the aIFdb, argublogging, arvina, and toast. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 245 (2012), 511–516.

11. okada, a., buckingham shum, s.J., and sherborne, t., eds. knowledge Cartography: software tools and mapping techniques. Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing. springer, london, 2008.

12. Pinkwart, n., ashley, k., lynch, C., and aleven, V.

evaluating an intelligent tutoring system for making legal arguments with hypotheticals. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 19, 4

(2009), 401–424.

13. rahwan, I. mass argumentation and the semantic Web. Web Semantics 6, 1 (2008), 29–37.

14. rahwan, I., Zablith, F., and reed, C. laying the foundations for a World Wide argument Web. Artificial Intelligence 171, 10–15 (2007), 897–921.

15. reed, C., bex, F., lawrence, J., and snaith, m. Demo: the argument analysis Wall. In Proceedings of Digital Futures: The Third Annual Digital Economy All Hands Conference (aberdeen, u.k., 2012).

16. snaith, m. and reed, C. toast: online asPIC+ implementation. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 245 (2012), 509–510.

17. van eemeren, F.h. and grootendorst, r. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge university Press, Cambridge, u.k., 2004.

18. Walton, D.n., reed, C.a., and macagno, F.

Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge university Press, Cambridge, u.k., 1995.

19. yuan, t., moore, D., reed, C., ravenscroft, a., and maudet, n. Informal logic dialogue games in human-computer dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review 26,

3 (2011), 159–174.

 

Floris Bex ( [e-mail]) is a researcher and instructor at the university of groningen, groningen, the netherlands.

John Lawrence ([e-mail]. ac.uk) is a Ph. D. student at the school of Computing of the university of Dundee, Dundee, u.k.

Mark Snaith ( [e-mail]) is a postdoctoral research assistant at the school of Computing of the university of Dundee, Dundee, u.k.

Chris Reed ( [e-mail]) is a professor at the school of Computing, university of Dundee, Dundee, uk.

Copyright held by owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to aCm. $15.00

Debate is a good
way to navigate
and support
engagement
with complex
issues involving
disagreement (such
as abortion, climate
change, and military
intervention)
that are not just
important but that
define our time.