Incorporating rhetorical and plausible reasoning in a system for simulating argumentation

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-7051(99)00010-6Get rights and content

Abstract

The article introduces argumentation theory, some examples of computational models of argumentation, some application examples, considers the significance and problems of argumentation systems, and outlines the significance and difficulties of the field. Also, the article describes a system which used rhetorical reasoning rules such as fairness, reciprocity, and deterrence which was used to simulate the text of a debate. The text was modelled using modern argumentation theory, and this model was used to build the system. The article discusses the system with regard to several aspects: its ability to deal with meaningful contradiction such as claim X supporting claim Y, yet claim Y attacking claim X; recursive arguments; inconsistency maintenance; expressiveness; encapsulation, the use of definitions as the basis for rules, and making generalisations using taxonomies. The article concludes with a discussion of domain dependence, rule plausibility, and some comparisons with formal logic.

Introduction

Modern argumentation theory seeks to understand the nature and structure of argumentation, which is a very common type of human communication. Its underlying principles are much more complex than those suggested by formal logic models of reasoning, as it uses a wide range of techniques, from analogies to emotional appeals, each technique having its own appropriate context.

The aim of this article is to explore the value of modern argumentation theory for our work building a system for simulating argumentation, focussing particularly on the extra value provided by a small sample of non-logical, rhetorical concepts. Our method is to record and transcribe a meeting, to code it according to the Toulmin scheme [1] of claims, warrants and premises, and to write the warrants as rules in our system, and then to run the system to generate a simulation of the meeting.

Previous work by the authors has involved simulation of a business meeting for which the system has been tested by running it with premises available in the same order as the arguments recorded during the meeting [2]. That simulation was compared with the transcript and with the responses of 55 business graduates (giving their reasons) over a test set of 23 arguments [3]. The present article involves simulation of a second meeting, a university seminar.

Section snippets

Argumentation theory

Following van Eemeren et al. [4]: the aims and objectives of the field of argumentation theory can be characterised as: (1) at a prescriptive level, to develop principles which inform people how to argue well; (2) at a descriptive level, to model the processes of argumentation underpinning such phenomena as setting and shifting a topic, holding the floor in conversation and negotiating social identities; (3) at a normative level the aim of the field is to develop a framework in order to

Computational models of argumentation

Any computational model of argumentation raises a number of questions. What is meant by relevance and how is the relevance of a piece of evidence established [99], [100]? How many different levels does an argument operate on—the method and order of presentation, the rhetorical devices used, the emotional appeal of the message, and so on [24]? How should these be represented? When are arguments descriptive, normative or prescriptive [25]? How do prescriptive statements affect descriptive ones?

Applications of computational argumentation

Within the legal and design domains the aim of argumentation systems is principally to decide which of several cases provides what kind of precedent [114]. A more ambitious system is HYPO [99], [100], [102], [115], used in the domain of trade secret law. It is also possible to generate hypothetical situations used as evidence to test arguments on a ‘what would happen if …’ basis [116]. HYPO provides information about relevant similarities and differences between cases (factors, dimensions, and

Significance of computational argumentation

Do people take account of argumentation in organisational situations or are decisions based on prior preferences? It has been found that there are two approaches to persuasion—the central route (via argumentation) relevant to those whose level of arousal or ‘need for cognition’ [58] is high—and the peripheral route, when the lazy and persuadable subject is vulnerable to selling and persuasion techniques such as suggestion and repetition and influenced by liking and affiliation [59].

However,

Debate simulation

Fig. 1 shows the debate text used as the source for the simulation, and Fig. 2 shows the system inputs and outputs.

The right hand column of Fig. 2 shows the user inputs [and in parentheses, the previous claims available as premises]. The middle column of Fig. 2 shows the warrants or rules used to justify the claims (shown in the left hand column).

Domain dependence

One potential criticism of the system is that of necessity the warrant set available to agents is domain dependent. The rules were used to represent a particular debate—the specifics of an example argument—which leaves open the question of whether or not they could be used in any automatic system or how effective they would be in live argumentation. In the example debate, there were 21 warrant rules and 15 facts. Even this, however, is a start and is no barrier to practical applications—Farley

References (119)

  • D. Kirsh

    Foundations of AI: the big issues

    Artificial Intelligence

    (1991)
  • L. Birnbaum

    Rigor mortis: a response to Nilsson’s logic and artificial intelligence

    Artificial Intelligence

    (1991)
  • P. Kugel

    Thinking may be more than computing

    Cognition

    (1986)
  • S. Toulmin

    The uses of argument

    (1958)
  • J.A.A. Sillince et al.

    A formal model of organisational argumentation: applications of informal logic to a committee meeting

    Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal

    (1999)
  • M.H. Saeedi, J.A.A. Sillince, A system for simulating human argumentation: test results compared with a realistic...
  • F.H. van Eemeren et al.

    Speech acts in argumentative discussions: a theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion

    (1994)
  • C.A. Dudszak, An inverse difference model of evidence, in: F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard,...
  • D. Hample et al.

    Arguers as editors

    Argumentation

    (1990)
  • R.H. Johnson, Informal logic and pragma-dialectics: some differences, in: F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A....
  • R.H. Gass, J.A. Sanders, R.L. Wiseman, Warrant, argument dimensions, perceived argument effectiveness, and the...
  • D. McCloskey

    The rhetoric of economics

    Journal of Economic Literature

    (1983)
  • C.A. Willard

    Reasoned use of expertise in argumentation

    Argumentation

    (1989)
  • R.D. McPhee, Argument fields and organizational logic failures, Paper presented at the Values, Arguments and...
  • C.M. Keogh, Collective bargaining: the interpenetration of values and arguments in organizational decisions, Paper...
  • S.C. Willihnganz, Rationality, arguments and ideal types, in: F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, C.A....
  • S. McEvoy, The construction of issues: pleading theory and practice, relevance in pragmatics, and the confrontation...
  • J. Habermas

    The theory of communicative action

    (1987)
  • W. Brockriede

    Rhetorical criticism as argument

    Quarterly Journal of Speech

    (1974)
  • R.J. Fogelin

    Understanding arguments: an introduction to informal logic

    (1978)
  • A. Flew

    Thinking about thinking, or do I sincerely want to be right?

    (1978)
  • R.H. Thouless

    Straight and crooked thinking

    (1968)
  • J.R. Anderson

    Cognitive psychology and its implications

    (1990)
  • D.J. Isenberg

    The structure and process of understanding: implications for managerial action

  • K.E. Weick

    Sensemaking in organizations

    (1995)
  • Ch. Perelman et al.

    The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation

    (1969)
  • C.C. Marshall, Representing the structure of a legal argument, in: Second International Conference on AI and Law:...
  • S.J. Alvarado, M.G. Dyer, M. Flowers, Memory organisation and retrieval for editorial comprehension, in: Proceedings of...
  • J.A.A. Sillince et al.

    What makes a strong argument?: Emotions, highly-placed values, and role-playing

    Communication and Cognition

    (1991)
  • J.A.A. Sillince, A model of argumentation, Discussion Paper No. 94.40, University of Sheffield, Management School,...
  • J.A.A. Sillince

    A design for information systems which can adapt to changing organisational requirements

    Software Maintenance: Research and Practice

    (1994)
  • J.A.A. Sillince

    The intention-inference problem in argumentation understanding

    Communication and Cognition

    (1993)
  • J.A.A. Sillince

    Organisational and behavioural issues raised by intelligent argumentation systems

    Behaviour and Information Technology

    (1993)
  • J.A.A. Sillince et al.

    Argumentation, self-consistency, and multi-dimensional argument strength

    Communication and Cognition

    (1992)
  • J.A.A. Sillince et al.

    Using argumentation to overcome hypertext’s HCI failings

  • U. Hahn et al.

    A multi-agent reasoning model for negotiation support

  • A. Stutt, Argument in the humanities: a knowledge-based approach, Human Cognition Research Laboratory Technical Report...
  • C.J. Rieger, Conceptual overlays: a mechanism for the interpretation of sentence meaning in context, in Proceedings of...
  • R.C. Schank

    Dynamic memory

    (1982)
  • M.G. Dyer

    In-depth understanding

    (1983)
  • Cited by (7)

    • The verification and modification of applicability of Lewicki & Bunker's trust model in VC-E's practice of China

      2012, International Conference on Management Science and Engineering - Annual Conference Proceedings
    • A discussion information-structuring model based on the toulmin formalism

      2008, e-Forensics 2008 - Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Forensic Applications and Techniques in Telecommunications, Information, and Multimedia and Workshop
    • A discussion information-structuring model based on the Toulmin formalism

      2008, Proceedings - 1st International Workshop on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, WKDD
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text