Many people think that arguing interferes with learning. They link argumentation to a
certain type of oppositional argument that is increasingly prevalent in our media culture. Tannen
(1998) analyzed the aggressive types of argument that are frequently seen on talk shows and in
the political sphere, where representatives of two opposed viewpoints spout talking points at
each other. In these forms of argumentation, the goal is not to work together toward a common
position, but simply to score points. All teachers and parents have seen children engaged in this
type of argumentation, and most would probably agree that it has little to contribute to education.

background

Commitment in dialogue

Arguing to learn

Logic is the science that deals with the formal principles and criteria of validity of patterns of inference. This chapter surveys logics for a particular group of patterns of inference, namely those where arguments for and against a certain claim are produced and evaluated, to test the tenability of the claim. Such reasoning processes are usually analysed under the common term ‘defeasible argumentation’. We shall illustrate this form of reasoning with a dispute between two persons, A and B. They disagree on whether it is morally acceptable for a newspaper to publish a certain piece of information concerning a politician’s private life.1 Let us assume that the two parties have reached agreement on the following points.

Logics for Defeasible Argumentation

Argumentation theory involves the analysis of naturally occurring argument, and one key tool employed to this end both in the academic community and in teaching critical thinking skills to undergraduates is argument diagramming. By identifying the structure of an argument in terms of its constituents and the relationships between them, it becomes easier to critically evaluate each part of an argument in turn. The task of analysis and diagramming, however, is labor intensive and often idiosyncratic, which can make academic exchange difficult. The Araucaria system provides an interface which supports the diagramming process, and then saves the result using AML, an open standard, designed in XML, for describing argument structure. Araucaria aims to be of use not only in pedagogical situations, but also in support of research activity. As a result, it has been designed from the outset to handle more advanced argumentation theoretic concepts such as schemes, which capture stereotypical patterns of reasoning. The software is also designed to be compatible with a number of applications under development, including dialogic interaction and online corpus provision. Together, these features, combined with its platform independence and ease of use, have the potential to make Araucaria a valuable resource for the academic community.

Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation

This article reviews formal systems that regulate persuasion dialogues. In such dialogues two or more participants aim to resolve a difference of opinion, each trying to persuade the other participants to adopt their point of view. Systems for persuasion dialogue have found application in various fields of computer science, such as non-monotonic logic, artificial intelligence and law, multi-agent systems, intelligent tutoring and computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Taking a game-theoretic view on dialogue systems, this review proposes a formal specification of the main elements of dialogue systems for persuasion and then uses it to critically review some of the main formal systems for persuasion. The focus of this review will be on regulating the interaction between agents rather than on the design and behaviour of individual agents within a dialogue.

Formal systems for persuasion dialogue

This article carries out a formal study of dialogue games for argumentation. A formal framework for such games is proposed which imposes an explicit reply structure on dialogues, where each dialogue move either attacks or surrenders to some earlier move of the other participant. The framework is flexible in several respects. It allows for different underlying logics, alternative sets of locutions and more or less strict rules for when they are allowed. In particular, it allows for varying degrees of coherence and flexibility when it comes to maintaining the focus of a dialogue. Its formal nature supports the study of formal properties of specific dialogue protocols, especially on how they respect the underlying logic.

/pdf/coherence-and-flexibility-in-dialogue-games-for-1jfej8vhad.pdf

Commitment in dialogue

Citations

Arguing to learn

Logics for Defeasible Argumentation

Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation

Formal systems for persuasion dialogue

Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation

Related Papers (5)

The uses of argument

Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning

On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n -person games

Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning

Logic and conversation