No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Dialectical trade-offs in the design of protocols for computer-mediated deliberation
Abstract
Ideal models of dialectical argumentation, such the pragma-dialectical critical discussion or Walton and Krabbe's persuasion dialogues, comprise of a set of rules that define reasonable argumentation under idealised conditions. Assuming such conditions, dialectical rules are meant to secure an orderly procedure for testing opinions. However, in actual circumstances violations of argumentative rules - identified as fallacies - can and do occur. Pragma-dialectics treats fallacies as "derailments of strategic manoeuvring", that is, contraventions of dialectical rules for a critical discussion committed by actual arguers for rhetorical gains. Hence, the predicament of actual argumentation is a possible (but not necessary) trade-off between dialectical constraints and rhetorical opportunities. In this paper I preliminarily conceptualise a different predicament that actual arguers may face. The sets of dialectical rules proposed in ideal models of argumentation are consistent and thus unproblematic, as long as they presuppose idealised conditions. However, when put to work in actual procedures for argumentation, the rules may clash with one another. For instance, the freedom to unlimitedly criticise the opponent may hinder the progress towards rational resolution of a difference of opinion. As a result, arguers may face a predicament in which the only way to observe one of the rules of reasonable argumentation is to violate another one. I call such possible clashes dialectical trade-offs, because they are clashes between dialectical rules that arise in actual circumstances of argumentation. Dialectical trade-offs are practical concerns that do not undermine the general composition and usefulness of the ideal models. Yet, they point to a practical difficulty in designing consistent and applicable protocols for reasonable argumentation. I will illustrate this difficulty by contrasting two kinds of protocols for computer-mediated deliberation: Internet forums for informal deliberation and formal models of deliberative dialogues developed within the field of Artificial Intelligence.
... Two intriguing problems within the study of the influence of technologies on the shape and quality of argumentation merit further investigation. First is the problem of "dialectical trade-offs" which occur whenever two or more ideal (dialectical) requirements, such as openness and orderliness, conflict with each other in actual implementation of an argumentation design (Aakhus & Lewiński, 2011;Lewiński, 2011b). This problem seems to be an instantiation of a general 2 Following prominent deliberation theorists (Bohman, Cohen, Habermas), we treat argumentation, in the sense of dialogical reason-giving, as a constitutive element of (collective) deliberation. ...
By looking at the argumentative uses of ‘status updates’, we discuss how Facebook design and context of use influenced opportunities for deliberation during the Egyptian phase of the Arab Spring in early 2011. Our basic point is that, somewhat against the grain of much debate on designing precise tools for supporting online argumentation, many benefits for open and critical argumentation result, in this case, from unintended, indeed parasitic, uses of online technologies. This is evident in the ways that (seemingly) politically trivial, “commercially colonized” and entertainment-oriented technologies such as Facebook or YouTube become major arenas for deliberative mobilization and serious argumentation.
... The articles of the volume discuss key topics presented in this section, as well as some new lines of inqiury. Among the addressed issues there are: applications of the Carneades Argumentation System (Walton, 2011;Łoziński, 2011), formal tools for evaluating persuasion dialogues (Amgoud & Dupin de Saint Cyr, 2011;Budzyńska & Kacprzak, 2011), applications of the AIF in representing schemes of inference, conflict, and preference , argument diagrams (Trzęsicki, 2011), the implementation of epistemic logics in argument analysis and evaluation (Bryniarski, Bonikowski, Waldmajer, and Wybraniec-Skardowska, 2011), the connections between the study of argument and computation and the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Model (Visser, Bex, Reed, & Garssen, 2011;Lewiński, 2011), and the impact of information technologies on the social discourse (Stefanowicz, 2011). ...
The paper discusses the relation between computational models of argument and the study of reasoning carried out within the tradition of the Lvov-Warsaw School (LWS). Section 1 presents the origins and the recent strands of inquiry into the overlap between argumentation theory and computer science. Section 2 refers to the legacy of the study of reasoning in the Lvov-Warsaw School. Some research areas of the School which correspond to the contemporary study of argument and computation are indicated. Reasons for applying methods of automated reasoning (esp. the MIZAR system) in argument analysis are given.
Our goal in this contribution is to further the study of contextualized argumentation by considering the role of pragma-dialectics for understanding the sphere of large-scale deliberation enabled through technological mediation such as seen in online fora. Large-scale deliberation (LSD), that is, argumentative discussion taking place among a large number of active participants and aimed, more or less directly, at making publicly acceptable decisions is not an entirely new phenomenon, as it was known in public assemblies as early as in ancient
Greece. Yet, thanks to the recent developments in information and communication technologies (ICT) which allow for many-to-many communication, LSD has become an increasingly popular and important context for public argumentation that requires close scholarly attention. In this contribution, we consider two general questions regarding LSD as especially pertinent: (1) what new insights can pragma-dialectics and normative pragmatics provide into analyzing and evaluating large-scale argumentation in computer-mediated deliberative activities; (2) what important consequences can study of such new argumentative activities have for a pragma-dialectical view of argumentation?
Argumentation is a crucial communicative activity in society. Many technologies exist
that support argumentation, such as mailing lists, group decision-support systems, coauthoring,
and negotiation support systems. However, many of these technologies do
not work very well in practice; they often support discussions that do not sufficiently
contribute to the purposes of their users. An important question therefore is: How to
select or design information technologies that better support the argumentative practices
of their community of use? In other words, how do technologies that support argumentation
become real argumentation tools?
Does political debate on the Internet contribute to the development of civility, a democratic community, and the public sphere? Examination of debate on Usenet/Netnews bulletin boards on the Internet provides a mixed reply. On the one hand, debates are often characterized by aggressiveness, certainty, angry assertion, insult, ideological abstraction, and the attempt to humiliate opponents. On the other hand, the debates might, even admitting these faults, be characterized as displaying a high degree of formal regularity, as robust exercises in free speech, as closely attentive (if unsympathetic) to opposing arguments, as performing virtuosity in argument and language, and as a rare opportunity for free participation in a political forum where one may meet widely divergent views.
In normative pragmatics, a kind of empirical discourse analysis organized by normative theory, the analysis of any communication process begins with an idealized model of the discourse that can be compared with actual practices. Idealizations of argumentation can be found, among other places, in theoretical descriptions of critical discussion and other dialogue types. Comparing ideal models with actual practices can pinpoint defects in the models (leading to theoretical refinements), but it can also identify deficiencies in practice. This latter possibility invites redesign around well-justified idealizations. This paper outlines an approach to the design of discourse processes and illustrates the approach with contrastive analysis of several recently developed protocols for discussion and debate on the worldwide web.
This chapter1 reviews formal dialogue systems for persuasion. In persuasion dialogues two or more participants try to resolve a conflict
of opinion, each trying to persuade the other participants to adopt their point of view. Dialogue systems for persuasion regulate
how such dialogues can be conducted and what their outcome is. Good dialogue systems ensure that conflicts of view can be
resolved in a fair and effective way [6]. The term ‘persuasion dialogue’ was coined by Walton [13] as part of his influential
classification of dialogues into six types according to their goal. While persuasion aims to resolve a difference of opinion, negotiation tries to resolve a conflict of interest by reaching a deal, information seeking aims at transferring information, deliberationdeliberation wants to reach a decision on a course of action, inquiry is aimed at “growth of knowledge and agreement” and quarrel is the verbal substitute of a fight. This classification leaves room for shifts of dialogues of one type to another. In particular,
other types of dialogues can shift to persuasion when a conflict of opinion arises. For example, in information-seeking a
conflict of opinion could arise on the credibility of a source of information, in deliberation the participants may disagree
about likely effects of plans or actions and in negotiation they may disagree about the reasons why a proposal is in one’s
interest.
Recent proposals for computer-assisted argumentation have drawn on dialectical models of argumentation. When used to assist public policy planning, such systems also raise questions of political legitimacy. Drawing on deliberative democratic theory, we elaborate normative criteria for deliberative legitimacy and illustrate their use for assessing two argumentation systems. Full assessment of such systems requires experiments in which system designers draw on expertise from the social sciences and enter into the policy deliberation itself at the level of participants.