An investigation into the use of logical and rhetorical tactics within eristic argumentation on the social web

Abstract

Argumentation is a key aspect of communications and can broadly be broken down into problem solving (dialectic) and quarrelling (eristic). Techniques used within argumentation can likewise be classified as fact-based (logical), or emotion/audience-based (rhetorical). Modelling arguments on the social web is a challenge for those studying computational argumentation as formal models of argumentation tend to assume a logical argument, whereas argumentation on the social web is often largely rhetorical. To investigate the application of logical versus rhetorical techniques on the social web, we bring together two ontologies used for modelling argumentation and online communities respectively, the Argument Interchange Format and the Semantic Interlinked Online Communities project. We augment these with our own ontology for modelling rhetorical argument, the Argumentation on the Social Web Ontology, and trial our additions by examining three case studies following argumentation on different categories of social media. Finally, we present examples of how rhetorical argumentation is used in the context of the social web and show that there are clear markers present that can allow for a rudimentary estimate for the classification of a social media post with regards to its contribution to a discussion.

More information

Identifiers

ORCID for David Millard: orcid.org/0000-0002-7512-2710

ORCID for Mark J. Weal: orcid.org/0000-0001-6251-8786

Catalogue record

Export record

Altmetrics