From the post:
A first glimpse of how AIF is supporting interchange on the Argument Web
Prototype development on infrastructure and basic tools has reached the point where we can get a first glimpse of how the Argument Web will support a wide range of argument-related practice online. The video shows how different argument analysis tools can interact with each other, and how tools for analysis can work in harmony with tools for argument authoring and debate.
All the software is currently available, and going through some final testing before release. Later on in January, we will open access to the AIF database, and the first set of import/export filters. Then in February, we will release a public beta of the first practical Argument Web tool: FireBack, a Firefox plugin for argublogging. Tools for debate, analysis and automated computation will then follow later in the Spring.
I must admit to being curious what “argublogging” looks like. I suspect it will have a remarkable resemblance to what we call “flame wars” on email discussion lists.
Jack Park, who forwarded this link, assures me that there are other forms of argumentation, sometimes using the term “dialogue.” I don’t doubt that to be true, but how common it is in fact? I have my doubts.
If I were to watch any of the political “debates” for the U.S. presidential election, I would assure Jack that “debates” they were not. Incivility, lying, false factual claims, non-responsiveness, all with the goal of saying what they came to say, would be a better characterization. And that is from just reading the newspaper accounts. (Easier to skim and so not to waste time on being mis-informed by the candidates.) A Magic 8-Ball would be a better source of answers for public policy.