The Zeno argumentation framework
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Discourse Support Systems for Deliberative Democracy
EGOV '02 Proceedings of the First International Conference on Electronic Government
Towards a computational account of persuasion in law
ICAIL '03 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web
Artificial Intelligence
Zeno Revisited: Representation of Persuasive Argument
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference
Towards Representing and Querying Arguments on the Semantic Web
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008
Political Engagement Through Tools for Argumentation
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008
Action-based alternating transition systems for arguments about action
AAAI'07 Proceedings of the 22nd national conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 1
Araucaria-PL: software for teaching argumentation theory
TICTTL'11 Proceedings of the Third international congress conference on Tools for teaching logic
Review: representing and classifying arguments on the semantic web
The Knowledge Engineering Review
A case-based approach to open-ended collective agreement with rational ignorance
ICCBR'11 Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development
| Hi-index | 0.02 |
Governments and other groups interested in the views of citizens require the means to present justifications of proposed actions, and the means to solicit public opinion concerning these justifications. Although Internet technologies provide the means for such dialogues, system designers usually face a choice between allowing unstructured dialogues, through, for example, bulletin boards, or requiring citizens to acquire a knowledge of some argumentation schema or theory, as in, for example, ZENO. Both of these options present usability problems. In this paper, we describe an implemented system called PARMENIDES which allows structured argument over a proposed course of action, without requiring knowledge of the underlying argumentation theory.