Abstract
We want to draw attention to “polemics”, collective processes that are complex, unavoidable and not infrequently of substantial consequence in social, political and economical terms. We propose to address the topic from the perspective of agreement technologies in order to elucidate its inherent epistemic, argumentative and social coordination aspects. Our aim is to develop an analytical framework to describe the key components of actual controversies and eventually provide technological means to participate in an ongoing disputation. In this paper we take three modest steps in that direction: (i) we foray the topic and introduce some conceptual distinctions and terminology, (ii) we characterise a type of polemical dispute that we think is significant from a practical perspective and amenable to formal and computational treatment and (iii) we articulate some salient challenges we find pertinent for the agreement technologies community.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Manuel Appert & translated by Oliver Waine, “Skyline policy: the Shard and London’s high-rise debate”, Metropolitics, 14 December 2011. http://www.metropolitiques.eu/Skyline-policy-the-Shard-and.html.
- 2.
For detailed discussions of all the examples see Wikipedia articles on Franklin Dam controversy, Narita International Airport Construction, Keystone Pipeline, NIMBY, Greek government debt crisis, Catalan self-determination referendum 2014, Stem cell controversy, Same sex marriage, Arguments for and against drug prohibition.
- 3.
Notice that in spite of these additional conditions our notion of polemical dispute still applies to the four classes of polemics we mentioned in Sect. 2.1.
- 4.
The relationships with the three levels are quite obvious. A fact in \(\mathcal {W}\) may give grounds to any stakeholder for promote a request \(\rho \) to open a due process \(\mathcal {I}\). Although \(\rho \) might not be reflected as such in the controversy \(\mathcal {C}\), at some point it is likely that utterances related with \(\rho \) will appear in \(\mathcal {C}\). Because level \(\mathcal {W}\) is within the institutional framework, anything that happens in \(\mathcal {W}\) and is relevant for the due process may be promoted into \(\mathcal {I}\). The rulings of \(\mathcal {I}\) (say \(\psi \)) will become public in \(\mathcal {W}\) and may produce polemical moves in \(\mathcal {C}\).
- 5.
We may use Toulmin’s [29] argument structure that includes four types of components—a claim which is sustained by the other components: grounds (premises, atomic arguments, other claims), warrant (inference, pertinence, norm or regulation, ...) and qualification (certainty, number, power,...)—whose actual content depends on the type of dialogue.
- 6.
References
Andrighetto, G., Governatori, G., Noriega, P., van der Torre, L.W.N. (eds.) Normative Multi-agent Systems, vol. 4 of Dagstuhl Follow-Ups. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2013)
Bex, F.J., Reed, C.A.: Schemes of inference, conflict and preference in a computational model of argument. Stud. Logic Grammar Rhetoric 36, 39–58 (2011)
Bex, F., Lawrence, J., Snaith, M., Reed, C.: Implementing the argument web. Commun. ACM 56(10), 66–73 (2013)
Bitzer, L.F.: The rhetorical situation. Philos. Rhetoric, 1–14 (1992)
Chesñevar, C., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S., et al.: Towards an argument interchange format. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(04), 293–316 (2006)
Churchman, C.W.: Guest editorial: Wicked problems (1967)
Cowan, S.: NIMBY syndrome and public consultation policy: the implications of a discourse analysis of local responses to the establishment of a community mental health facility. Health Soc. Care Commun. 11(5), 379–386 (2003)
Dascal, M.: Types of Polemics and Types of Polemical Moves. Tel-Aviv University, Faculty of Humanities, Tel-Aviv (1998)
d’Inverno, M., Luck, M., Noriega, P., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C.: Communicating open systems. Artif. Intell. 186, 38–94 (2012)
Dix, J., Parsons, S., Prakken, H., Simari, G.: Research challenges for argumentation. Comput. Sci.-Res. Dev. 23(1), 27–34 (2009)
Dorschel, A.: Passions of the intellect: a study of polemics. Philosophy 90(04), 679–684 (2015)
Herzig, A., Lorini, E., Troquard, N.: A dynamic logic of institutional actions. In: Leite, J., Torroni, P., Ågotnes, T., Boella, G., van der Torre, L. (eds.) CLIMA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6814, pp. 295–311. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22359-4_21
Jones, A., Sergot, M.: A formal characterization of institutionalized power. Logic J. IGPL 4(3), 427–446 (1996)
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: J. Econometric Soc., 263–291 (1979)
Klein, M.: How to harvest collective wisdom on complex problems: an introduction to the MIT deliberatorium. Center for Collective Intelligence Working Paper (2011)
Kuypers, J.A.: Framing analysis from a rhetorical perspective. Doing News Framing Anal.: Empirical Theoret. perspect., 286–311 (2010)
Lakoff, G.: Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Chelsea Green Publishing Co., White River Junction (2004)
Lawrence, J., Reed, C., Allen, C., McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., Bourget, D.: Mining arguments from 19th century philosophical texts using topic based modelling. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining, pp. 79–87 (2014)
Lippi, M., Torroni, P.: Argumentation mining: state of the art and emerging trends. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 16(2), 101–1025 (2016)
McAvoy, G.E.: Partisan probing and democratic decisionmaking rethinking the NIMBY syndrome. Policy Stud. J. 26(2), 274–292 (1998)
McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., Parsons, S.: The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 22(1), 95–132 (2007)
Mochales, R., Moens, M.-F.: Argumentation mining. Artif. Intell. Law 19(1), 1–22 (2011)
Rabinow, P.: Polemics, politics and problematizations. An interview with Michel Foucault. In: The Foucault Reader, pp. 381–390. Pantheon Books (1984)
Rahwan, I.: Mass argumentation and the semantic web. Web Semant.: Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 6(1), 29–37 (2008)
Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., Reed, C.: Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artif. Intell. 171(10), 897–921 (2007)
Reed, C.: Wigmore, Toulmin and Walton: the diagramming trinity and their application in legal practice. http://tillers.net/reed diagramming trinity.pdf/ Downloaded 14 Oct 2006
Reed, C., Walton, D.: Argumentation schemes in dialogue. Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground (Proceedings of OSSA 2007) (2007)
Searle, J.R.: What is an institution. J. Inst. Econ. 1(1), 1–22 (2005)
Toulmin, S.E.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
Walton, D.: Dialogue Theory for Critical Argumentation. Benjamins, Amsterdam (2007)
Walton, D., Gordon, T.F.: The Carneades model of argument invention. Pragmatics Cogn. 20(1), 1–31 (2012)
Walton, D., Toniolo, A., Norman, T.J.: Missing phases of deliberation dialogue for real applications. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS2014, pp. 1–20. ArgMAS (2014)
Acknowledgements
We received support of SINTELNET (FP7-ICT-2009-C Project No. 286370) and project MILESS (MINECO TIN2013–45039-P). We also wish to thank reviewers of the previous version of this paper, “Making sense out of polemics” (ArgMAS 2015).
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
Lemaitre, C., Noriega, P. (2017). Characterising Polemical Disputes. 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_44
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59294-7_44
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)