Using Argumentation to Structure E-Participation in Policy Making

Tools for e-participation are becoming increasingly important. In this paper we argue that existing tools exhibit a number of limitations, and that these can be addressed by basing tools on developments in the field of computational argumentation. After discussing the limitations, we present an argumentation scheme which can be used to justify policy proposals, and a way of modelling the domain so that arguments using this scheme and attacks upon them can be automatically generated. We then present two prototype tools: one to present justifications and receive criticism, and the other to elicit justifications of user-proposed policies and critique them. We use a running example of a genuine policy debate to illustrate the various aspects.

[1]  Katie Atkinson,et al.  Using Computational Argumentation to Support E-participation , 2009, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[2]  D. Walton.  Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning , 1995 .

[3]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Agreeing to Differ : Modelling Persuasive Dialogue Between Parties With Different Values , 2003 .

[4]  SchneiderJodi,et al.  A review of argumentation for the Social Semantic Web , 2013 .

[5]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Opinion gathering using a multi-agent systems approach to policy selection , 2012, AAMAS.

[6]  Dimitris Papadias,et al.  Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system , 2001, Inf. Syst..

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

[8]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A Model-Based Critique Tool for Policy Deliberation , 2012, JURIX.

[9]  Wenfei Fan,et al.  Keys with Upward Wildcards for XML , 2001, DEXA.

[10]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation based tools for policy-making , 2013, ICAIL.

[11]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  States, goals and values: Revisiting practical reasoning , 2016, Argument Comput..

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

[13]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A lightweight formal model of two-phase democratic deliberation , 2010, JURIX.

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

[15]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Structuring Dialogue between the People and Their Representatives , 2003, EGOV.

[16]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Populating an Online Consultation Tool , 2011, JURIX.

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

[18]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Semantic models for policy deliberation , 2011, ICAIL.

[19]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Towards a Structured Online Consultation Tool , 2011, ePart.

[20]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  On obligations and normative ability: Towards a logical analysis of the social contract , 2005, J. Appl. Log..

[21]  C. Reed.  Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue Between Parties With Different Values , 2001 .

[22]  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..

[23]  Ann Macintosh,et al.  Providing Argument Support for E-Participation , 2009 .

[24]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Structuring E-Participation in Policy Making through Argumentation , 2013, DEXA.

[25]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks , 2009, Artif. Intell..

[26]  Daniel R. Cartwright.  Digital decision-making : using computational argumentation to support democratic processes , 2011 .

[27]  Werner Kunz,et al.  Information science: On the structure of its problems , 1972, Inf. Storage Retr..

[28]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[29]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Critiquing Justifications for Action Using a Semantic Model: Demonstration , 2012, COMMA.