Some of the major limitations identified in the areas of argument mining, argument generation, and natural language argument analysis are related to the complexity of annotating argumentatively rich data, the limited size of these corpora, and the constraints that represent the different languages and domains in which these data is annotated. To address these limitations, in this paper we present the following contributions: (i) an effective methodology for the automatic generation of natural language arguments in different topics and languages, (ii) the largest publicly available corpus of natural language argumentation schemes, and (iii) a set of solid baselines and fine-tuned models for the automatic identification of argumentation schemes.

Towards Artificial Argumentation

The field of computational models of argument is emerging as an important aspect of artificial intelligence research. The reason for this is based on the recognition that if we are to develop robust intelligent systems, then it is imperative that they can handle incomplete and inconsistent information in a way that somehow emulates the way humans tackle such a complex task. And one of the key ways that humans do this is to use argumentation either internally, by evaluating arguments and counterarguments‚ or externally, by for instance entering into a discussion or debate where arguments are exchanged. As we report in this review, recent developments in the field are leading to technology for artificial argumentation, in the legal, medical, and e-government domains, and interesting tools for argument mining, for debating technologies, and for argumentation solvers are emerging.

The AAAI-11 workshop program was held Sunday and Monday, August 7–18, 2011, at the Hyatt Regency San Francisco in San Francisco, California USA. The AAAI-11 workshop program included 15 workshops covering a wide range of topics in artificial intelligence. The titles of the workshops were Activity Context Representation: Techniques and Languages; Analyzing Microtext; Applied Adversarial Reasoning and Risk Modeling; Artificial Intelligence and Smarter Living: The Conquest of Complexity; AI for Data Center Management and Cloud Computing; Automated Action Planning for Autonomous Mobile Robots; Computational Models of Natural Argument; Generalized Planning; Human Computation; Human-Robot Interaction in Elder Care; Interactive Decision Theory and Game Theory; Language-Action Tools for Cognitive Artificial Agents: Integrating Vision, Action and Language; Lifelong Learning; Plan, Activity, and Intent Recognition; and Scalable Integration of Analytics and Visualization. This article presents short summaries of those events.

The AAAI-11 workshop program was held Sunday and Monday, August 7–18, 2011, at the Hyatt Regency San Francisco in San Francisco, California USA. The AAAI-11 workshop program included 15 workshops covering a wide range of topics in artificial intelligence. The titles of the workshops were Activity Context Representation: Techniques and Languages; Analyzing Microtext; Applied Adversarial Reasoning and Risk Modeling; Artificial Intelligence and Smarter Living: The Conquest of Complexity; AI for Data Center Management and Cloud Computing; Automated Action Planning for Autonomous Mobile Robots; Computational Models of Natural Argument; Generalized Planning; Human Computation; Human-Robot Interaction in Elder Care; Interactive Decision Theory and Game Theory; Language-Action Tools for Cognitive Artificial Agents: Integrating Vision, Action and Language; Lifelong Learning; Plan, Activity, and Intent Recognition; and Scalable Integration of Analytics and Visualization. This article presents short summaries of those events.

It is well known that argumentation can usefully be analysed as a distinct, if complex, type of speech act. Speech acts that form a part of argumentative discourse, and in particular, of argumentative dialogue, can be seen as anchors for the establishment of inferences between propositions in the domain of discourse. Most often, the speech acts that directly give rise to inference are implicit, but can be drawn out in analysis by consideration of the type of dialogue game being played. AI approaches to argumentation often focus solely on such inferences as the means by which persuasion can be effected – but this is in contrast with psychological and rhetorical models which have long recognised the role played by extra-logical features of the dialogical context. These ‘peripheral’ cues can not only affect persuasive effect of the logical, ‘central’ argumentation, but can override and dominate it. This paper presents a theory which allows both central and peripheral aspects of argumentation to be represented in a coherent analytical account based on the sequences of speech acts which constitute dialogues.