Towards an AI Model of Argumentation

This paper describes a process model of human argumentation, and provides examples of its operation as implemented in a computer program. Our main concerns include such issues as the rules and structures underlying argumentation, how these relate to conversational rules, how reasoning is used in arguments, and how arguing and reasoning interact. implemented, and using them the program is capable of participating in the following argument fragment, concerning the question of who was responsible for the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. The program can assume either the Israeli or the Arab point of view. [ll Arab: Who started the 1967 War? [ 21 Israeli: The Arabs did, by blockading the Straits of Tiran. Introduction [31 Arab: But Israel attacked first. Engaging in an argument is a task of considerable complexity, involving the coordination of many different abilities and knowledge sources. Some questions that arise in trying to construct a process model of argumentation include: What sub-tasks comprise argumentation? What are the argumentation ? rules underlying What representations of argument structure are necessary to support these argument rules? What are the conversational rules required for dealing with arguments as a specific type of dialogue? How is the ability to reason about the world used in the argumentation process? How do reasoning interact? and argumentation To address these questions, we are in the process of building a system, called ABDUL/ILANA, that can adopt a point of view and engage in a political argument, supporting its beliefs with argument techniques using appropriate facts and reasoning. The program takes natural language input and produces natural language output. All of the rules and mechanisms described in this paper have been This work was supported in part by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense, monitored by the Office of Naval Research under contract N00014-75-C-1111, and in part by the National Science Foundation under contract IST7918463. [41 Israeli: According to international law, blockades are acts of war< [51 Arab: Were we supposed to let you import American arms through the Straits? [6l Israeli: Israel was not importing arms through the Straits. The reason for the blockade was to keep Israel from importing oil from Iran. No matter which point of view the program adopts, it uses the same principles of argumentation, abstract knowledge, and historical facts. In this way, the argument is not over the facts but instead over the interpretation of the facts, slanted by the sympathies of each arguer.