Mixed initiative argument in public deliberation

Abstract. This paper aims to demonstrate the connection between argument structures, such as those that are created and manipulated by argument mapping tools, and argumentative dialogues, such as those that form a part of online deliberative processes. Our approach is to use recent advances in argument-based knowledge representation, and to tie these to tools we have developed that support argument mapping activities (specifically, the OVA analysis tool), and argument dialogue (specifically, the Arvina dialogue system, which is built on top of Google Wave). We use as our domain a recent contentious debate in Scottish politics which involved both wide-scale deliberative aspects and politically complex decision making. By explicitly representing argument structure we demonstrate how online debate tools can support mixed initiative argument, in which there is a level playing field between the points of view espoused autonomously by software, and those put forward by human participants.