When we find ourselves in endless debates where everyone defends their idea, we don't know how to handle the situation. We eventually find a way out, but what we need is an excellent system.
Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively
How to turn arguments from vicious battles into productive dialogues.
The sound of inevitability
Have you ever argued with someone who is seriously good at debating? I have. It sucks. You’re constantly thrown off-balance, responding to a point you didn’t expect to. You find yourself defending the weak edges of your argument, while the main thrust gets left behind in the back-and-forth, and you end up losing momentum, confidence, and ultimately, the argument. One of my close friends won international debate competitions for fun while we were at university (he’s now a successful criminal barrister), and he told me that the only trick in the book, once you boil it all down, is to make sure the conversation is framed in your terms. Once that happens, it’s all over bar the shouting.
We argue badly, and nothing accumulates. How could we do better? | Reason Commons — Issue Trees & Logical Thinking Process
Millions of people argue every day about the things that matter most — climate change, what to do about AI, how we might build a better world. Some of it is sharp, even insightful. And almost none of it accumulates.
Debate Maps — The Society Library
While The Society Library is dedicated to enabling access to information through our libraries, we recognize the difficult and tricky work of organizing that content into formal deliberation. There are hundreds of cognitive biases and logical pitfalls that can get in our way as human beings. Therefore, as a part of our service, The Society Library endeavors to map the knowledge we collect into “debate maps,” which essentially means we are organizing the arguments, claims, evidence, and opinions from all points of view into a formal debate - and effectively enabling “societal-scale debate.” A feat which may be otherwise impossible to organize in comparable levels of comprehensiveness with the existing limits of media, language, and human bandwidth to which we are confined.
Building a Discourse Community
Sure, anyone can set up their very own Discourse in 30 minutes or less. But how do you get people to go there?
The Honest Case for the Humanities
Or: Why I’m Tired of My Colleagues Making Arguments That Only Work on Us
Wikum: Bridging Discussion Forums and Wikis Using Recursive Summarization
Large-scale discussions between many participants abound on the internet today, on topics ranging from political arguments to group coordination. But as these discussions grow to tens of thousands of posts, they become ever more difficult for a reader to digest. In this article, we describe a workflow called recursive summarization, implemented in our Wikum prototype, that enables a large population of readers or editors to work in small doses to refine out the main points of the discussion. More than just a single summary, our workflow produces a summary tree that enables a reader to explore distinct subtopics at multiple levels of detail based on their interests. We describe lab evaluations showing that (i) Wikum can be used more effectively than a control to quickly construct a summary tree and (ii) the summary tree is more effective than the original discussion in helping readers identify and explore the main topics.
AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation
Finding agreement through a free exchange of views is often difficult. Collective deliberation can be slow, difficult to scale, and unequally attentive to different voices. In this study, we trained an artificial intelligence (AI) to mediate human deliberation. Using participants’ personal opinions and critiques, the AI mediator iteratively generates and refines statements that express common ground among the group on social or political issues. Participants ( N = 5734) preferred AI-generated statements to those written by human mediators, rating them as more informative, clear, and unbiased. Discussants often updated their views after the deliberation, converging on a shared perspective. Text embeddings revealed that successful group statements incorporated dissenting voices while respecting the majority position. These findings were replicated in a virtual citizens’ assembly involving a demographically representative sample of the UK population. , Editor’s summary To act collectively, groups must reach agreement; however, this can be challenging when discussants present very different but valid opinions. Tessler et al . investigated whether artificial intelligence (AI) can help groups reach a consensus during democratic debate (see the Policy Forum by Nyhan and Titiunik). The authors trained a large language model called the Habermas Machine to serve as an AI mediator that helped small UK groups find common ground while discussing divisive political issues such as Brexit, immigration, the minimum wage, climate change, and universal childcare. Compared with human mediators, AI mediators produced more palatable statements that generated wide agreement and left groups less divided. The AI’s statements were more clear, logical, and informative without alienating minority perspectives. This work carries policy implications for AI’s potential to unify deeply divided groups. —Ekeoma Uzogara , INTRODUCTION Democracy, at its best, rests upon the free and equal exchange of views among people with diverse perspectives. Collective deliberation can be effectively supported by structured events, such as citizens’ assemblies, but such events are expensive, are difficult to scale, and can result in voices being heard unequally. This study investigates the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to overcome these limitations, using AI mediation to help people find common ground on complex social and political issues. RATIONALE We asked whether an AI system based on large language models (LLMs) could successfully capture the underlying shared perspectives of a group of human discussants by writing a “group statement” that the discussants would collectively endorse. Inspired by Jürgen Habermas’s theory of communicative action, we designed the “Habermas Machine” to iteratively generate group statements that were based on the personal opinions and critiques from individual users, with the goal of maximizing group approval ratings. Through successive rounds of human data collection, we used supervised fine-tuning and reward modeling to progressively enhance the Habermas Machine’s ability to capture shared perspectives. To evaluate the efficacy of AI-mediated deliberation, we conducted a series of experiments with over 5000 participants from the United Kingdom. These experiments investigated the impact of AI mediation on finding common ground, how the views of discussants changed across the process, the balance between minority and majority perspectives in group statements, and potential biases present in those statements. Lastly, we used the Habermas Machine for a virtual citizens’ assembly, assessing its ability to support deliberation on controversial issues within a demographically representative sample of UK residents. RESULTS Group opinion statements generated by the Habermas Machine were consistently preferred by group members over those written by human mediators and received higher ratings from external judges for quality, clarity, informativeness, and perceived fairness. AI-mediated deliberation also reduced division within groups, with participants’ reported stances converging toward a common position on the issue after deliberation; this result did not occur when discussants directly exchanged views, unmediated. Although support for the majority position increased after deliberation, the Habermas Machine demonstrably incorporated minority critiques into revised statements. We replicated these results in a virtual citizens’ assembly, additionally finding that during AI-mediated deliberation, the views of groups of discussants tended to move in a similar direction on controversial issues. These shifts were not attributable to biases in the AI, suggesting that the deliberation process genuinely aided the emergence of shared perspectives on potentially polarizing social and political issues. CONCLUSION This research demonstrates the potential of AI to enhance collective deliberation by finding common ground among discussants with diverse views. The AI-mediated approach is time-efficient, fair, scalable, and outperforms human mediators on key dimensions. Rather than simply appealing to the majority, the Habermas Machine prominently incorporated dissenting voices into the group statements. AI-assisted deliberation is not without its risks, however; to ensure fair and inclusive debate, steps must be taken to ensure users are representative of the target population and are prepared to contribute in good faith. Under such conditions, AI may be leveraged to improve collective decision-making across various domains, from contract negotiations and conflict resolution to political discussions and citizens’ assemblies. The Habermas Machine offers a promising tool for finding agreement and promoting collective action in an increasingly divided world. AI helps people find common ground in collective deliberation. (Left) The AI mediator uses participants’ opinions to generate group statements and iteratively refines those statements through participants’ critiques. (Middle) Statements from the AI mediator (purple) garner stronger endorsement than those written by a human mediator (orange). (Right) AI mediation leaves groups less divided after deliberation, whereas simply sharing opinions with others does not.
Argumentation theory | Communication and Mass Media | Research Starters | EBSCO Research
<p>Argumentation theory explores the processes and methods of reasoning and debate used by individuals in both formal and informal contexts. The theory has roots in ancient philosophical discourse, particularly from figures like Aristotle, and has evolved through the contributions of modern philosophers such as Chaïm Perelman and Stephen Toulmin. It highlights how arguments are structured, identifying key components such as claims, grounds (or data), and warrants, which collectively help participants make their case. </p> <p>Additionally, arguments can be categorized into three main types: factual claims, which are verifiable; judgment or value claims, which are subjective; and policy claims, which pertain to proposed courses of action. This framework acknowledges the influence of personal biases, often shaping the reasoning process, and emphasizes the importance of logical support, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals in strengthening arguments. In academic contexts, the theory suggests that creating valid topics should focus on policy arguments, while also addressing counterarguments to foster a comprehensive debate. Overall, argumentation theory serves as a critical tool for understanding how reasoning and persuasive communication function in various scenarios.</p>
What we (don’t) talk about when we talk about AI
Everybody’s talking about it; everybody’s tired of talking about it. Why aren’t we making more progress in the discussion?
Getting started - Docs
Discourse Graphs are a tool and ecosystem for collaborative knowledge synthesis, enabling researchers to map ideas and arguments in a modular, composable graph format.
Toward Automated Discourse Network Analysis
Discourse Network Analysis has long been capped by the price of expert judgment. Here is a design for automating it at corpus scale without surrendering command of meaning — and FineStructure, the open-source workbench I am building for it.
Guide to Incrementals/Navigating Criticism | The Paper Pilot
The Paper Pilot's digital garden of thoughts on philosophy, politics, and sociology
Guide to Incrementals/Balancing | The Paper Pilot
The Paper Pilot's digital garden of thoughts on philosophy, politics, and sociology
"We should be able to have an open discussion about what's good science and freely critique bad research. No not you! You shouldn't be having an open discussion about what's good metascience or freely critique bad metaresearch. That's censorship." Idk about you folks but I'm tired of the bullshit.
