The study of arguments has an academic pedigree stretching back to the ancient Greeks, and spans disciplines from theoretical philosophy to computational engineering. Developing computer systems that can recognize arguments in natural human language is one of the most demanding challenges in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). Writing in Nature, Slonim et al.1 report an impressive development in this field: Project Debater, an AI system that can engage with humans in debating competitions. The findings showcase how far research in this area has come, and emphasize the importance of robust engineering that combines different components, each of which handles a particular task, in the development of technology that can recognize, generate and critique arguments in debates. Less than a decade ago, the analysis of human discourse to identify the ways in which evidence is adduced to support conclusions -- a process now known as argument mining2 -- was firmly beyond the capabilities of state-of-the-art AI. Since then, a combination of technical advances in AI and increasing maturity in the engineering of argument technology, coupled with intense commercial demand, has led to rapid expansion of the field.

While deliberate misinformation and deception are by no means new societal phenomena, the recent rise of fake news5 and information silos2 has become a growing international concern, with politicians, governments and media organizations regularly lamenting the issue. A remedy to this situation, we argue, could be found in using technology to empower people's ability to critically assess the quality of information, reasoning, and argumentation through technological means. Recent empirical findings suggest "false news spreads more than the truth because humans, not robots, are more likely to spread it."10 Thus, instead of continuing to focus on ways of limiting the efficacy of bots, educating human users to better recognize fake news stories could prove more effective in mitigating the potentially devastating social impact misinformation poses. While technology certainly contributes to the distribution of fake news and similar attacks on reasonable decision-making and debate, we posit that technology--argument technology in particular--can equally be employed to counterbalance these deliberately misleading or outright false reports made to look like genuine news.

The ability to argue, to express our reasoning to others, is one of the defining features of what it is to be human. Processes of argumentation run our governments, structure scientific endeavour and frame religious belief. So should we worry that new advances in artificial intelligence are taking steps towards equipping computers with these skills? As technology reshapes our lives, we are all getting used to new ways of working and new ways of interacting. Millennials have known nothing else.

The ability to argue, to express our reasoning to others, is one of the defining features of what it is to be human. Processes of argumentation run our governments, structure scientific endeavour and frame religious belief. So should we worry that new advances in artificial intelligence are taking steps towards equipping computers with these skills? As technology reshapes our lives, we are all getting used to new ways of working and new ways of interacting. Millennials have known nothing else.

Humans are used to being outdone by computers when it comes to recalling facts, but they still have the upper hand in an argument. It has long been the case that machines can beat us in games of strategy like chess. And we have come to accept that artificial intelligence is best at analysing huge amounts of data - sifting through the supermarket receipts of millions of shoppers to work out who might be tempted by some vouchers for washing powder. But what if AI were able to handle the most human of tasks - navigating the minefield of subtle nuance, rhetoric and even emotions to take us on in an argument? It is a possibility that could help humans make better decisions and one which growing numbers of researchers are working on.