Presenting Arguments as Fictive Dialogue
نویسنده
چکیده
Presentation of an argument can take many different forms ranging from a monologue to advanced graphics and diagrams. This paper investigates the presentation of one or more arguments in the form of a fictive dialogue. This technique was already employed by Plato, who used fictive conversations between Socrates and his contemporaries to put his arguments forward. Ever since, there have been influential authors – including Desiderius Erasmus, Sir Thomas More and Mark Twain – that have used dialogue in this way. In this paper, we define the notion of a fictive dialogue, motivate it is as a topic for investigation, and present a qualitative and quantitative study of five fictive dialogues by well-known authors. We conclude by indicating how our preliminary and ongoing investigations may inform the development of systems that automatically generate argumentative fictive dialogue.
منابع مشابه
A Dialogue of Two Books on Film and Philosophy Mehrdad Pourelm
The books Philosopher or Director and Film as Philosophy, in their own way, address the issues of film and philosophy and their relationship. From the outset, Philosopher or Director takes on an evaluative approach and tries to project this relationship as a false and constructed concept but Film as Philosophy, tries to approach this issue from different angles with an analytical approach and, ...
متن کاملGod, Love, and Interreligious Dialogue
The monotheistic religions that valorize love typically believe that their love for God should be extended to God's creatures and, in particular, to one's fellow human beings. Yet, in practice, the love of the Christian or Muslim or Hindu monotheist doesn't always extend to the love of the religious other. Precisely how, then, should the adherents of the major monotheistic religions respond to ...
متن کاملLoose Lips Sink Ships?: a Heuristic for Argumentation
While researchers have looked at many aspects of argumentation, an area often neglected is that of argumentation strategies. That is, given multiple possible arguments that an agent can put forth, which should be selected in what circumstances. In this paper, we propose a heuristic that implements one such strategy, namely revealing as little information as possible to other dialogue participan...
متن کاملProfiles of Dialogue for Evaluating Arguments from Ignorance
The argument from ignorance is a hard type of argumentation to evaluate using the profile of dialogue as a tool, because parts of the argumentation are responses that do not occur in the sequence of exchanges. The argument from ignorance works as an inference because implications are drawn from what was not said. This feature poses a difficulty for the profile of dialogue method. And in fact, w...
متن کاملArguing from Similar Positions: An Empirical Analysis
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...
متن کامل