Abstract
Argumentative debates are a powerful tool for resolving conflicts and reaching agreements in open environments such as on-line communities. Here we introduce an argumentation framework to structure argumentative debates. Our framework represents the arguments issued by the participants involved in a debate, the (attack and defence) relationships between them, as well as participants’ opinions on them. Furthermore, we tackle the problem of computing a collective decision from participants’ opinions. With this aim, we design an aggregation function to ensure that participants reach a coherent collective decision.
Funded by Collectiveware TIN2015-66863-C2-1-R (MINECO/FEDER) and 2014 SGR 118.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Nevertheless, there are notable differences, e.g., bipolar argumentation frameworks do not consider labellings (different opinions on arguments), nor their aggregation.
References
City of Barcelona participation portal (2016). https://decidim.barcelona
City of Reykjavík participation portal (2016). http://reykjavik.is/en/participation
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Livet, P.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23(10), 1062–1093 (2008)
Awad, E., Booth, R., Tohmé, F., Rahwan, I.: Judgment aggregation in multi-agent argumentation. CoRR, abs/1405.6509 (2014)
Trevor, J., Bench-Capon, M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 619–641 (2007)
Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11853886_11
Caminada, M.W.A., Gabbay, D.M.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Stud. Logica. 93(2–3), 109–145 (2009)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS, vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.1007/11518655_33
Dietrich, F.: A generalised model of judgment aggregation. Soc. Choice Welf. 28(4), 529–565 (2007)
Gabbriellini, S., Torroni, P.: Microdebates: structuring debates without a structuring tool1. AI Commun. 29(1), 31–51 (2015)
Klein, M.: Enabling large-scale deliberation using attention-mediation metrics. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 21(4–5), 449–473 (2012)
Klein, M., Convertino, G.: A roadmap for open innovation systems. J. Soc. Media Org. 2(1), 1 (2015)
Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R., Benthem, J.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 47. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0
Weerakkody, V., Reddick, C.G.: Public Sector Transformation Through e-Government: Experiences from Europe and North America. Routledge, Abingdon (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ganzer-Ripoll, J., Lopez-Sanchez, M., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J.A. (2017). A Target-Oriented Discussion Framework to Support Collective Decision Making. In: Criado Pacheco, N., Carrascosa, C., Osman, N., Julián Inglada, V. (eds) Multi-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies. EUMAS AT 2016 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10207. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59294-7_39
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59294-7_39
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59293-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-59294-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)