loading...
 This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Dialogical Argument as an Interface to Complex Debates
November/December 2007 (vol. 22 no. 6)
pp. 60-65
ASCII Text
x 
 
Chris Reed, Simon Wells, "Dialogical Argument as an Interface to Complex Debates," IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 60-65, November/December, 2007.
 
 
BibTex
x
 
@article{ 10.1109/MIS.2007.106,
author = {Chris Reed and Simon Wells},
title = {Dialogical Argument as an Interface to Complex Debates},
journal ={IEEE Intelligent Systems},
volume = {22},
number = {6},
issn = {1541-1672},
year = {2007},
pages = {60-65},
doi = {http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MIS.2007.106},
publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
address = {Los Alamitos, CA, USA},
}
 
 
RefWorks Procite/RefMan/Endnote
x 
 
TY - MGZN
JO - IEEE Intelligent Systems
TI - Dialogical Argument as an Interface to Complex Debates
IS - 6
SN - 1541-1672
SP60
EP65
EPD - 60-65
A1 - Chris Reed,
A1 - Simon Wells,
PY - 2007
KW - theory and models of group and organizational interfaces
KW - distributed representations of knowledge
KW - discourse
KW - multiagent systems
KW - knowledge modeling
KW - argumentation
KW - debate
VL - 22
JA - IEEE Intelligent Systems
ER -
 
Chris Reed, University of Dundee
Simon Wells, University of Dundee
The Magtalo (Multiagent Argumentation, Logic, and Opinion) system is a prototype environment for debate that supports naturalistic dialogue. Magtalo demonstrates how to harness dialogue protocols to achieve two objectives: First, Magtalo supports flexible intuitive interaction with data in complex debate domains to facilitate understanding and assimilation. Second, it supports structured knowledge elicitation, which enables the expansion of the those domains' resources. This article is part of a special issue on argumentation technology.

1. T.F. Gordon and N.I. Karacapilidis, "The Zeno Argumentation Framework," Proc. 6th Int'l Conf. Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL97), ACM Press, 1997, pp. 10–18.
2. C. Reed and G.W.A. Rowe, "Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation," Int'l J. AI Tools, vol. 14, no. 4, 2004, pp. 961–980.
3. F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, and F.A. Snoeck Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.
4. J. Fox and S. Das, "A Unified Framework for Hypothetical and Practical Reasoning (2): Lessons from Medical Applications," Proc. Int'l Conf. Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning (FAPR 96), LNCS 1085, Springer, 1996, pp. 73–92.
5. D.N. Walton and E.C.W. Krabbe, Commitment in Dialogue, SUNY Press, 1995.
6. P. McBurney and S. Parsons, "Risk Agoras: Using Dialectical Argumentation to Debate Risk," Risk Management, vol. 2, no. 2, 2000, pp. 17–27.
7. S. Wells and C. Reed, "A Drosophila for Computational Dialectics," Proc. 4th Int'l Conf. Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS05), ACM Press, 2005, pp. 1263–1264.
8. C. Chesnevar et al., "Towards an Argument Interchange Format," Knowledge Eng. Rev., vol. 21, no. 4, 2006, pp. 293–316.
9. M. Caminada, "Semi-stable Semantics," Computational Models of Argument: Proc. COMMA2006, IOS Press, 2006, pp. 121–132.
1. J.D. Mackenzie, "Question Begging in Non-cumulative Systems," J. Philosophical Logic, vol. 8, 1979, pp. 117–133.
2. D.N. Walton and E.C.W. Krabbe, Commitment in Dialogue, SUNY Press, 1995.

Index Terms:
theory and models of group and organizational interfaces, distributed representations of knowledge, discourse, multiagent systems, knowledge modeling, argumentation, debate
Citation:
Chris Reed, Simon Wells, "Dialogical Argument as an Interface to Complex Debates," IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 60-65, Nov./Dec. 2007, doi:10.1109/MIS.2007.106
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.