Dear CHI colleagues,
We recently launched the GlobalArgument.net project as an internet
experimental medium for advancing the state of the art in
Computer-Supported Argumentation. Our topic for Argumentation Experiment 1
is the Iraq Debate.
We have leading members of the computational argument modelling and mapping
community involved, but key contributions from the CHI community would
include information design and visualization to assist in navigating the
complex debate, and grasping important connections between elements (at
least, as asserted by the thought leaders whose published views we are
If you're interested in bringing to bear your approach, then read on...
Could this fit into an ongoing project that you run on information design,
hypermedia/website design, public understanding of politics or ethics?
Simon Buckingham Shum
Senior Lecturer, Knowledge Media Institute, Open University, UK
Former Australian Cabinet Minister
"GlobalArgument.net is an experiment to evaluate different
Computer-Supported Argumentation approaches: both the technologies, and the
'craft skill' of using them effectively.
Our two-fold objectives are to:
* showcase how complex debates of topical interest can be more effectively
navigated and analysed when mapped in software tools
* advance the state of the art in practical argumentation support tools
<http://www.globalargument.net/players/>Players participate in
working to an agreed schedule and from common sources. Through systematic
comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of approaches, we aim to clarify
how approaches can be usefully compared and improved.
We hope that you find this an intriguing idea, and invite you to join in
the next experiment."
And below is the announcement I posted today on Argumentation Experiment 1...
Experiment 1 (Mar-May 2005): Iraq Debate
Introduction to the debate
The decision by the United States and a number of allies (including the UK
and Australia) to militarily remove the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq in
March-April 2003 provoked one of the most heated and complex public policy
debates in recent times. The debate continues to the present day as more
information bearing on the war’s original justification becomes available
and the focus shifts to the appropriate policy for post-war Iraq.
Innumerable arguments and considerations have been invoked in the different
arenas where the debate has been conducted (parliamentary/congressional
debates, various branches of academia, the media, the vernacular public
debate) bearing on the legality, morality and prudence of the war.
The positions taken by participants almost invariable depend (either
implicitly or explicitly) on some larger framework of analysis that
determines the weight or relevance accorded to different considerations.
This may be a comprehensive theory about the justification for war (such as
traditional Just War Theory), or a distinctive ethical theory (such as
Consequentialism), or a perspective shaped within a particular academic
discipline (e.g. the Realist/Constructivist/Liberalist debate amongst
international relations scholars) – or just a collection of prejudices.
Ideally, we would like to develop an integrated overview of substantial
parts of the debate, making reference to a representative selection of
sources (textual and other media) in which the arguments are expressed.
Dr Simon J. Buckingham Shum
Senior Lecturer, Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University
Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1908 655723
Fax: +44 (0)1908 653169 [office]
eFax: +44 (0)870 122 8765 [direct]
Email: [log in to unmask]
"All models are wrong, but some are useful" W. Edwards Deming
Compendium: hypermedia sensemaking www.CompendiumInstitute.org
Visualizing Argumentation www.VisualizingArgumentation.info
To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
mailto:[log in to unmask]
For further details of CHI lists see http://sigchi.org/listserv