Online Discussion

Deep Dive in Argumentation Theory

About the Efficiency of Online Discussions

METRO|NOM Düsseldorf, April 2nd 2019 By Dr. Tobias Krauthoff (tobias.krauthoff@metronom.com)

Problem: Current online discussion tools do not always work


Goal: Introduce a new approach for online discussions

Disclaimer: This work is not related to METRO|NOM, bases on my academic career and when I say we I mean my professorship.

Our Journey

  • Motivation & Basics
  • State of the Art
  • Argumentation Theory
  • Take it easy

Motivation & Basics

State of the Art
Argumentation Theory
Take it easy

Scope of this talk

  • Local politics
  • Citizens are not happy with decision processes
  • Democratic representatives might not always
    be sufficient
  • Citizens want to participate actively on decisions
  • Stuttgart 21 $\rightarrow$ Train station at Hamburg Altona
  • Large scale online discussion tools do not scale

Motivation

  • Online participation processes do not always work
  • Interaction of the participants is a key element
  • Participants are not practiced in (online) reasoning
  • Large number of discussion participants
  • Use of argumentation theory for online participation processes

Offline Discussions



Online Discussions

Benefits and their Costs for Online Discussions

  • Exchange of views
  • Information gain
  • Accessibility
  • Exhibits power
  • Manipulation
  • Initial hurdle
  • Trolling
  • Hate
  • Complexity
Motivation & Basics

State of the Art

Argumentation Theory
Take it easy

Representation

  • Lists & Threads
  • Structured Lists & Threads
  • Argumentation Maps
  • Matrix and Container
    Approaches
Software: phpBB 3.2
Software: ConsiderIt
Software: bCivise
$A_0$ $A_1$ $A_2$ $A_3$
$A_4$ + - / +
$A_5$ - / + o
$A_6$ o o + /
...lorem ipsum...

Kiviat

Idea

  • Simulate a real world discussion online
  • System is a representative of users that already participated
  • Input of other users are the base of new discussion
  • Conducting a dialog with a current user
  • Combine with argumentation theory

By now we know ...

  • ... the problem
  • ... the advantages of online discussions
  • ... different kinds of visualization
Motivation & Basics
State of the Art

Argumentation Theory

Take it easy

Argumentation Theory?

  • Interdisciplinary study
    • Use of arguments
    • Logic and rhetoric
  • Origins in epistemology
  • Many kinds of argumentation
  • How does current/everyday argumentation looks like?

Deductive argumentation, Probabilistic reasons,
Monotonic theories, ... ?

Is it usable for unskilled participants?

https://www.planetminecraft.com/blog/
sexism-in-minecraft--how-to-deal-
with-thembe-one-a-boys-perspective/

Aspic+

An abstract argumentation framework $(AF)$ is a pair $(A,D)$, where $A$ is a set of arguments and $D \subseteq A \times A$ is a binary relation of defeat. We say that $A$ strictly defeats $B$ if $A$ defeats $B$ while $B$ does not defeat $A$. A semantics for $AFs$ returns sets of arguments called extensions, which are internally coherent and defend themselves against attacks.

Aspic+ Extensions

Let $\left(A,D\right)$ be an AF. $\forall X \in A, X$ is acceptable with respect to some $S \subseteq A$ iff $\forall Y$ s. t. $(Y,X) \in D \Rightarrow \exists Z \in S$ s. t. $(Z,Y) \in D$.

Let $S \subseteq A$ be conflict free , i.e. there are no $A,B \in S$ such that $(A,B) \in D$. Then:

  • S is an admissible extension iff $X \in S$ implies $X$ is acceptable w. r. t. $S$;
  • S is an complete extension iff $X \in S$ whenever $X$ is acceptable w. r. t. $S$;
  • S is a preferred extension iff it is a set inclusion maximal complete extension;
  • S is the grounded extension iff it is the set inclusion minimal complete extension;
  • S is a stable extension iff it is preferred and $\forall Y \notin S, \exists X \in S$ s. t. $(X,Y) \in D$.


Not usable for unskilled participants!

Motivation & Basics
State of the Art
Argumentation Theory
Novel Approach

Let's take it easy
What do we really need?

Argumentation Flow

Dialog-Based Argumentation System


https://dbas.cs.hhu.de & https://github.com/hhucn/dbas

Where is the Theory?

  • Display
  • Bootstrap
  • Feedback
  • Navigation
  • Input
  • Practical use of argumentation theory and maps!

The Easy Approach


And now?

  • Dialog flow by D-BAS
  • Embedding structured discussions
    in any website
  • Using D-BAS as execution
    platform for social bots
  • Network of argument providers

    • $\Rightarrow$ $discuss$, $Jebediah$ $\&$ $EDEN$

discuss

Problem: Discussions are everywhere on the web, especially on blogs, newspaper articles, ...

Solution:

  • Embed in every web-context utilizing a JS environment
  • Interact with author's argument
  • Jump into discussion
  • Dialog-flow discussions everywhere
  • Connect to EDEN
  • https://github.com/hhucn/discuss

Jebediah

Problem: What about discussion on Social Media? How to connect to them?

Solution:

EDEN

Problem: Newspapers want to stay the origin of provided statements, but also want enrich their discussions.

Solution:

    • Networked arguments as a resource
    • Media outlets run their own dialog-based
      argumentation software
    • Join a distribution network
    • Aggregators may have differing policies
      (argument's validity according to rules)
    • https://github.com/hhucn/eden

That's it

  • Large scale online discussions have
    a structure now
  • Advantages over current approaches
  • Community driven approach
    $\Rightarrow$ No moderators needed

Any questions?


@joinmetronomnow
tobias.krauthoff@metronom.com
http://tiny.cc/aeod

Appendix