Can AI Models Capture Natural Language Argumentation?

Formal AI models of argumentation define arguments as reasons that support claims which may be beliefs, decisions, actions, etc.. Such arguments may be attacked by other arguments. The main issue is then to identify the accepted ones. Several semantics were thus proposed for evaluating the arguments. Works in linguistics focus mainly on understanding the notion of argument, identifying its types, and describing different forms of counter-argumentation. This paper advocates that such typologies are instrumental for capturing real argumentations. It shows that some of the forms cannot be handled properly by AI models. Finally, it shows that the use of square of oppositions a very old logical device illuminates the interrelations between the different forms of argumentation.

[1]  Philippe Besnard,et al.  Bridging the Gap between Abstract Argumentation Systems and Logic , 2009, SUM.

[2]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr,et al.  Handling enthymemes in time-limited persuasion dialogs , 2011, SUM 2011.

[4]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  A Relevance-theoretic Framework for Constructing and Deconstructing Enthymemes , 2012, J. Log. Comput..

[5]  Denis Apothéloz.  Esquisse d'un catalogue des formes de la contre-argumentation , 1989 .

[6]  Paul J. Krause,et al.  Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information , 1993, UAI.

[7]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Metalevel argumentation , 2011, J. Log. Comput..

[8]  Selmer Bringsjord.  The Hypercomputational Case for Substance Dualism , 2010 .

[9]  Ch. Perelman,et al.  The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation , 1971 .

[10]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation in artificial intelligence , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Chris Reed,et al.  Argumentation Schemes , 2008 .

[12]  C. Cayrol,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks , 2005, ECSQARU.

[13]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  An introduction to argumentation semantics , 2011, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[14]  Denis Apothéloz,et al.  The function of negation in argumentation , 1993 .

[15]  Nicholas Rescher,et al.  Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge , 1977 .

[16]  Marco Tonti.  The Operationalization of the Unconscious: Models of Subcognitive Informatics , 2014, Int. J. Cogn. Informatics Nat. Intell..

[17]  Jordi Vallverd,et al.  Thinking Machines and the Philosophy of Computer Science: Concepts and Principles , 2010 .

[18]  Florence Bannay,et al.  Handling Enthymemes in Time-Limited Persuasion Dialogs , 2011, SUM.

[19]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation , 2005, J. Log. Comput..

[20]  John L. Pollock,et al.  How to Reason Defeasibly , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Pavlos Moraitis,et al.  A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation , 2007, AAMAS '07.

[22]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[23]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Elements of Argumentation , 2007, ECSQARU.

[25]  Chen Liang,et al.  Generating Semantic Annotation of Video for Organizing and Searching Traffic Resources , 2014, Int. J. Cogn. Informatics Nat. Intell..

[26]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence , 2009 .

[27]  Pablo Noriega,et al.  A Framework for Argumentation-Based Negotiation , 1997, ATAL.

[28]  Denis Apothéloz,et al.  Champ et effets de la négation argumentative: contre-argumentation et mise en cause , 1992 .

[29]  John L. Pollock,et al.  Defeasible Reasoning , 2020, Synthese Library.

[30]  O. Oha.  Fallacies , 2005 .

[31]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  On the meta-logic of arguments , 2005, AAMAS '05.