Supporting Argument in e-Democracy
•
2 gostaram•1,966 visualizações
![Overview ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (9)
Semelhante a Supporting Argument in e-Democracy
Semelhante a Supporting Argument in e-Democracy (20)
Mais de Danube University Krems, Centre for E-Governance
Mais de Danube University Krems, Centre for E-Governance (20)
Último
Último (20)
Supporting Argument in e-Democracy
- 1. Supporting Argument in e-Democracy Dan Cartwright, Katie Atkinson, and Trevor Bench-Capon Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK / 26 Presentation to EDEM 2009
Notas do Editor
- Background of argumentation and debate in e-Democracy and why they are important Existing tools that promote argument and debate and their limitations Argumentation schemes, a method of structuring argument , and how they can be used in e-Democracy to overcome shortfalls of existing systems Parmenides: tool to allow public consultation through debate. Parmenides uses arg schemes to structure debate . Scheme catalogue provides support for multiple, interacting, schemes
- The government should consult the public before making major decisions or policy changes Many systems have been created to exploit this, and examples exist that are in use by governments The systems employ a wide variety of approaches to gather and analyse data
- Basically online versions of paper petitions e-Petitions still in use Fox hunting debate Suggests that the Fox Hunting ban should be repealed Problem with e-Petitions, like paper-based versions, is that respondents cant be selective about which parts of argument they agree with
- To overcome this problem, research has focussed on creating tools with an underlying formal structure Tools for argument visualisation simply map the positions put forward in a debate Araucaria: Input is a textual arg, output is a graphical map of the argument showing the various positions Tools for decision support not only map the positions, but evaluate them in order to provide support for making decisions Ease of use important in e-Democracy where people are from wide backgronds and unlikely to be familiar with formal argument structures
- Like a template of a debate, with gaps for the relevant details to be filled in Arg from Exp Op – for using the opinion of an expert in your argument Fill in all of the red elements with the facts specific to your argument Your argument then becomes and instance of this scheme
- Proponent of the argument needs to be able to defend it against all attacks by CQs
- E.g. if we are responding to the statement of an expert, we may want to use the opinion of another expert, or we may want to use a different kind of argument altogether Are only some schemes appropriate for responding to each CQ? Are some more appropriate than others?
- This is an argument scheme for practical reasoning i.e. arguing that an action should be carried out in order to realise a goal, which promotes a social value
- So now, as well as knowing which part of an argument the respondent disagrees with, we can determine why they disagree. Because of the underlying structure this can all be analysed computationally
- Government present policy proposals to public together with a justification Users critique proposal by answering questions related to the justification Website and database files allow the public to interact with the debate
- Initial position of debate is an instance of this scheme
- Entry interface: ensures semantics of scheme are retained so the system can use it correctly Catalogue: Additional info includes description of scheme, how and where the scheme is typically used, and examples of CQs
- The justification is an instance of the practical reasoning scheme Presents a number of reasons for carrying out action Consists of circs, cons, social values Debate successfully implemented in Parmenides, can be viewed at URL on this slide
- The supporting evidence is a pre-programmed response to one of the CQs Administrator uses scheme catalogue to choose appropriate scheme
- MAIN: Zoomed out view of one justification of the argument. Central node is the initial position (justification for action). Each branch represents attack of CQ on the argument. Red, Green, Arrows LEFT: Shows one branch of framework. Green node circled indicates most users disagree with the circumstances. This attacks the initial justification because it says that part of the justification is not true. RIGHT: Shows an expansion of the circumstances branch to view supporting evidence. Can see the critical questions of the supporting evidence, so we can see if, and why, respondents disagree with it.
- Gov can see which elements of their policy, or presentation of policy, need to be changed
- Evaluation: Allowed a student at a university in Italy to set up a debate, number of students from that university participated. The student wrote about the system in his thesis. This has provided useful feedback. Large scale evaluation now in planning – we plan to work with the student guild at Liverpool uni to set up a debate which students can participate in. They already have a popular website which we will use to promote the debate.
- Structure is required so that the resulting data can be analysed computationally