This work explores the utility of sentiment and arguing opinions for classifying stances in ideological debates. In order to capture arguing opinions in ideological stance taking, we construct an arguing lexicon automatically from a manually annotated corpus. We build supervised systems employing sentiment and arguing opinions and their targets as features. Our systems perform substantially bet...

In this commentary, we endorse concerns about the health impact of the trans-pacific partnership (TPP), paying particular attention to its mechanisms for investor state dispute settlement. We then describe the different, judgeled approach being advocated by the European Commission team negotiating the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, arguing that, while not perfect, it offers si...

The need for negotiation in multi agent systems stems from the requirement for agents to solve the problems posed by their interdependence upon one an other Negotiation provides a solution to these problems by giving the agents the means to resolve their con icting objectives correct inconsistencies in their knowledge of other agents world views and coordinate a joint approach to do main tasks ...

This paper introduces a Subjective Logic based argumentation framework primarily targeted at evidential reasoning. The framework explicitly caters for argument schemes, accrual of arguments, and burden of proof; these concepts appear in many types of argument, and are particularly useful in dialogues revolving around evidential reasoning. The concept of a sensor is also useful in this domain, a...

In the 60s and 70s few people were interacting with computers and if they did, those interactions were predominantly work-related. It seems quite natural then, that early Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), which emerged at that time, strove to enable people to perform work-related tasks in an efficient and error free way. During the 1980s, usability engineering emerged from this understanding of...

Building ontologies has been proven to be a complex issue in part because a community must commit to the conceptualization that the ontology represents. The community members must align their concepts and co-create. Arguing about a useful conceptualization is therefore an essential part of the process of designing an ontology. Logicians have developed formal argumentation theories, but have not...

One of the most controversial issues about arguments involving deontic and ethical matters is whether statements of duty or right can be inferred from statements of fact, and conversely. Most analytical philosophers have inclined to give a negative answer, alleging that duties or rights are not implied by mere facts (or the other way round), and hence that no combination of facts can imply a du...

Argument-based deliberation dialogues are an important mechanism in the study of agent coordination, allowing agents to exchange formal arguments to reach an agreement for action. Agents participating in a deliberation dialogue may begin the dialogue with very similar sets of arguments to one another, or they may start the dialogue with disjoint sets of arguments, or some middle ground. In this...