Software for the representation of deliberative argumentation: the conceptual foundations and the properties of classification and use

E. N. Lisanyuk, D. E. Prokudin


The development of modern society as a network has led to the spread of deliberative argumentation as one of the methods used in various fields of human activity. In the information society, the use of methods of deliberative argumentation is based on the use of appropriate application software, which is designed for visualization and modeling of intellectual activity to solve various types of practical problems, including argumentation. Developers of the software designed to model and represent argumentation explicitly or implicitly implement the conceptual foundations of definite conceptions of argumentation in it. In our study we determine some of those conceptions on the basis of how the software at stake models the deliberative argumentation and what are its key purpose and functions with respect to visualizing and assessing arguments. We consider some examples of analyzing argumentation with the help of such software. The results of our study serve as a starting point for formulating of a set of criteria for evaluating the software and its subsequent classification.

Full Text:

PDF (Russian)


Vagin V.N., Morosin O.N. Software implementation of an argumentation system withjustification degrees // Software & Systems. 2015. № 1. P. 21 -27. DOI: 10.15827/0236-235X.109.021-027

Zagorulko Yu.A., Garanina N.O., Borovikova O.I., Domanov O.A. Argumentation modeling in popular science discourse using ontologies // Ontology of Designing. 2019. Т. 9. №4(34). С.496-509. DOI: 10.18287/2223-9537-2019-9-4-496-509

Lisanyuk E.N. Argumentacija i ubezhdenie. SPb, Nauka. 2015.

Karpov, G. V., Lisanyuk, E. N. [Practical philosophy of teaching argumentation and critical thinking]. Professional education in the modern world, 2020, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 3959–3970. DOI: 10.15372/PEMW20200307

Lisanyuk E.N., Prokudin D.E. Modeli obuchenija argumentacii s ispol'zovaniem programmnogo obespechenija // Logiko-filosofskie shtudii. 2016. V. 13. № 2. P. 217-218.

Lisanyuk E.N., Prokudin D.E. Classifying software for argumentation modelling // Internet i sovremennoe obshhestvo: sbornik tezisov dokladov / Trudy XX Mezhdunarodnoj ob’edinennoj nauchnoj konferencii «Internet and Modern Society» (IMS-2017), St.Peterburg, June, 21–23, 2017, SPb., ITMO University, 2017. P. 11-13.

Aragón P., Kaltenbrunner A., Calleja-López A., Pereira A., Monterde A., Barandiaran X. E., Gómez V. Deliberative Platform Design: The Case Study of the Online Discussions in Decidim Barcelona. 2017. ArXiv:1707.06526

Atkinson K., Bench-Capon T., Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems // Artificial Intelligence. 2007. No. 171. P. 855–874.

Davies T., Chandler R. Online deliberation design: Choices, criteria, and evidence // Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement / Nabatchi T., Weiksner M., Gastil J., Leighninger M. (eds.). Oxford: Oxford univ. press, 2013. P. 103-131.

Dung P. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n–person games // Artificial Intelligence, 1995. No. 77. P. 321–357.

Gordon T.F. An Overview of the Carneades Argumentation Support System // Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation. An Examination of Douglas Waltons Theories of Reasoning / Tindale, C.W., Reed, C. (eds.). 2010. P. 145—156.

Grassle S. Digital tools for participatory democracy // GovLab Blog. 2015. 5 марта.

Klein M., Iandoli L. Supporting Collaborative Deliberation Using a Large-Scale Argu- mentation System: The MIT Collaboratorium // Proceedings of the Eleventh Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing Symposium and the Third International Conference on Online Deliberation (DIAC_ 2008/OD 2008), Berkeley, California. 2008. P. 5—12.

Krauthoff T., Meter C., Baurmann M., Betz G., Mauve M. D-BAS-A Dialog-Based Online Argumentation System // Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2018 305. 2018. P. 325-336. DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-906-5-325

Kunz W., Rittel H. Issues as elements of information systems. Working Paper No. 131, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif., 1970.

Mahadevan, N., A. Dubey, D. Balasubramanian, Karsai G. Deliberative, search-based mitigation strategies for model-based software health management // Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering. Springer London, 2013. P. 1-26.

Mejia M. How can digital tools support deliberation? Join the conversation! // Medium. 2020. 10 апреля.

Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice. Davies T., Gangadharan S.P. (eds.). Stanford, CSLI Publications. 2009.

Pollock J. Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, 1995.

Schneider D., Voigt C., Betz G. Argunet: A software tool for collaborative argumentation analysis and research // 7th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2007), Hyderabad, India. 2007.

Visualizing Argumentation. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., Carr, C. S. (Eds.). Springer, London, 2003. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9

Bondarenko A., Dung P.M., Kowalski R.A., Toni F. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning // Artif. Intell. 1997. 93(1–2). P. 63–101.

Walton D. N. Legal argumentation and evidence. Pennsylvania State Univ. Pr. 2002., Pp. I-XVII, 1-374.

Walton D. N. A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London, 1995. Pp. 155-156.

Walton D. N. Scare Tactics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2000. P.123.

Gordon T.F., Prakken H., Walton D. The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof // Artificial Intelligence. 2007. 171 (10-11). P. 875–96.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Abava  Absolutech Convergent 2020

ISSN: 2307-8162