Dialogues on the Argument Web: Mixed
Initiative Argumentation with Arvina
John LAWRENCE, Floris BEX and Chris REED
Argumentation Research Group, School of Computing, University of Dundee
Abstract. . . .
Keywords.

1. Introduction
Direct and real-time discussion between two or more people on the web takes place
not just via email and instant messaging but also on forums and message boards.
These technologies offer only the most basic of structural tools: the discussion isrendered in linear way and most structure is often brought in by the participants
themselves, e.g. by putting ‘@Bob’ in front of their message when they reply
to a point made by Bob. The structure of the arguments that are formed in a
discussion is thus easily lost.
Our web-based discussion software Arvina [3]. allows participants to debate
a range of topics in real-time in a way that is structured but at the same time
unobtrusive. Arvina uses dialogue protocols to structure the discussion between
participants. Such protocols determine which types of moves can be made (e.g.
questioning, claiming) and when these moves can be made (e.g. a dialogue starts
with a claim, questions can only be moved after a claim has been made). Protocols facilitate a good and rational debate because they, for example, ensure thateach participant’s opinion is fairly represented and they provide structure to thedialogue itself as well as to the opinions expressed in this dialogue [2]. Figure 1
shows the debate interface. Notice that a (small) part of the Argument Web isdisplayed as a live discussion map on the right. The argumentative ‘moves’ theuser can make in this particular dialogue are represented in the drop-down menu
at the bottom.
In Arvina, reasons for and against opinions are linked to the already available arguments on the Argument Web [1]. Furthermore, Arvina can also use thearguments already on the Argument Web in real-time debate. Arvina takes amulti-agent system populated by agents representing (the arguments of) specificauthors who have previously added their opinion to the Argument Web in someway. So, for example, say that Wilma has constructed a complex, multi-layered
argument using OVA [?] concerning the use of nuclear weapons. An agent representing Wilma can then be added to an Arvina discussion and questioned about

these opinions and the agent will answer by giving Wilma’s opinions. Thus, Arvina cannot just be used to express arguments but also to explore them and to use
arguments made by others in one’s own reasoning.

Figure 1. The Arvina Interface

2. Interface to the Argument Web
The Argument Web resources with which Arvina interacts are stored in AIFdb, adatabase specification of AIF. As well as offering a range of web service interfaces
to lower level argument components such as nodes, edges and schemes, AIFdb
also features a ‘middle layer’ which groups these queries giving a simple interface
for more complex interactions. For example, a single query to the AIFdb middle
layer is performed by Arvina when a user asks a question. This query is theninterpreted and the relevant low level argument components are queried in orderto provide the agent with an answer. Similarly when a user submits their own
claims in Arvina, these are posted as a single query which is then expanded toadd the relevant argument components to the database. In this way Arvina isseparated from the low level details of argument storage and is unaffected bychanges to the underlying database structure.

3. Conclusion
Arvina moves online discussion away from the linear, unstructured conversations
currently seen online by allowing the user to direct the discussion and pursue
specifically the areas which interest them most. Additionally, the user is able tooffer their own responses to any claim which are then added to the Argument
Web allowing for them to be interacted with in a structured way by a wide varietyof other software.

References
[1]
[2]

[3]

I. Rahwan, F. Zablith, and C. Reed. Laying the foundations for a world wide argumentweb. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15):897–921, 2007.
C. Reed, S. Wells, J. Devereux, and G. Rowe. Aif+: Dialogue in the argument interchange
format. In Proceeding of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument:
Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pages 311–323. IOS Press, 2008.
M. Snaith, J. Lawrence, and C. Reed. Mixed initiative argument in public deliberation.
Online Deliberation, page 2, 2010.