ARGUMENTATION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF DELIBERATION DIALOGUE

According to argumentation theory, reasoning takes place in different types of dialogue: persuasion dialogue, negotiation, deliberation, information-seeking dialogue, inquiry, and eristic dialogue. These different dialogue types may be nested within one another. Current research in artificial intelligence is building formal models corresponding to each of these types of dialogue and showing how they can be implemented in, for example, multi-agent communications systems. In this paper, we (1) clarify the distinction between deliberation dialogue and persuasion dialogue, (2) survey some recent research in artificial intelligence studying formal properties of deliberation dialogue, (3) present a model of argumentation in deliberation dialogue that has proved to be useful in electronic democracy, and (4) argue that this model provides an attractive alternative to the dominant cost-benefit model of rational argumentation traditionally accepted in economics and other fields as the basis for evaluating argumentation of the kind used in policy decision making.

[1]  David J. Israel,et al.  Plans and resource‐bounded practical reasoning , 1988, Comput. Intell..

[2]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming , 1993, IJCAI.

[3]  J. Horowitz,et al.  Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments , 1994 .

[4]  Nikos I. Karacapilidis,et al.  The Zeno argumentation framework , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[5]  D. Walton.  The new dialectic , 1998 .

[6]  W. Ferguson,et al.  The Politics of Automobile Insurance Reform: Ideas, Institutions, and Public Policy in North America , 1999 .

[7]  J. Searle.  Rationality in Action , 2001 .

[8]  A. Whyte,et al.  Electronic Democracy and Young People , 2003 .

[9]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[10]  Chris Reed,et al.  Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation , 2004, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

[11]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action , 2004, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[12]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Argumentation-Based Multi-agent Dialogues for Deliberation , 2005, ArgMAS.

[13]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Computational Representation of Practical Argument , 2006, Synthese.

[14]  Douglas Walton,et al.  How to make and defend a proposal in a deliberation dialogue , 2006, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[15]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  A generative inquiry dialogue system , 2007, AAMAS '07.

[16]  Peter McBurney,et al.  The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue , 2007, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[17]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Value-Based Arguments in the Dictator Game , 2008 .

[18]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  COMPUTATIONAL MODELS OF ARGUMENT, PROCEEDINGS OF COMMA 2008 , 2008, COMMA 2008.

[19]  N. Bardsley.  Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact? , 2008 .