3rd Summer School on Argumentation: Computational and Linguistic Perspectives

6th - 10th September 2018

Program

You can follow the summer school at Politechnika’s Facebook page here.

Proceedings

The summer school proceedings are available here.

Programme Overview

The program will consist of four types of tutorials: (1) the introduction to argumentation theory; (2) the presentation of COMMA leading themes (COMMA tutors); (3) the presentation of links between argumentation studies and research in Poland (Warsaw tutors); (4) the presentation of contemporary advances in argumentation theory (SSA tutors). The school will also feature the Student Session which will consist of contributed talks, posters and discussions with mentors. There are also several social events scheduled for the duration of SSA 2018. The preliminary overview of the programme is given below.

Thursday 6th Sept Friday 7th Sept Saturday 8th Sept Sunday 9th Sept Monday 10th Sept
09:15-09:30 Welcome
09:30-11:00 Introductory Tutor 1 Introductory Tutor 2 SSA Tutor 2 SSA Tutor 3 COMMA Tutor 1
11:00-11:20 Coffee break Coffee break Coffee break Coffee break Coffee break
11:20-12:50 SSA Tutor 1 Warsaw Tutor 1 Warsaw Tutor 2 Warsaw Tutor 3 SSA Tutor 4
12:50-14:10 Lunch break Lunch break Lunch break Lunch break Lunch break
14:10-15:40 Student Session I SSA Tutor 1 SSA Tutor 3 SSA Tutor 5 SSA Tutor 5
15:40-16:00 Coffee break Coffee break Coffee break Coffee break Coffee break
16:00-17:30 Student Session II SSA Tutor 2 SSA Tutor 4 Mentoring Session COMMA Tutor 2
18:00 Welcome to Warsaw
(sightseeing tour)
Welcome Reception Social Dinner

Tutors

(1) Introductory tutorials

Michał Araszkiewicz, Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University Poland
Tutorial: Introduction to argumentation theory across disciplines: AI and law (Introductory Tutorial 1, with Koszowy)
Abstract

Michał Araszkiewicz PhD (Legal Theory, 2010) – post-doc in the Department of Legal Theory at the Faculty of Law and Administration of the Jagiellonian University. The President of the ArgDiaP Association. Member of the Executive Commitee of International Association for Artificial Intelligence and Law (IAAIL). He has published more that 50 journal papers, monograph chapters and refereed workshop papers on legal theory, AI and Law, argumentation, legal epistemology, economic analysis of law, dispute resolution. PhD student at the Faculty of Philosophy, Co-editor of three contributed Springer volumes. Legal advisor (member of the Bar Council in Kraków).

Marcin Koszowy, Faculty of Law, University of Białystok Poland
Tutorial: Introduction to argumentation theory across disciplines: Philosophy and rhetoric (Introductory Tutorial 1, with Araszkiewicz)
Abstract

Marcin Koszowy is Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy and History of Law at the University of Białystok, postdoctoral researcher in the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, and member of the Centre for Argument Technology (ARG-tech). His research interests cover argumentation and dialogue, arguments from authority in deliberative discourse and in legal argumentation, dialogical ethos, and argument mining. Marcin serves as deputy president of the ArgDiaP Association that coordinates the activities of the Polish School of Argumentation. He has published 30 peer-reviewed papers, co-edited 6 special journal issues, and delivered 15 invited talks in Canada, Poland and Portugal.

Katarzyna Budzynska, Centre for Argument Technology, Polish Academy of Sciences & University of Dundee Poland & UK
Tutorial: Introduction to argumentation theory across disciplines: Computer science and computational linguistics (Introductory Tutorial 2, with Debowska-Kozlowska)
Abstract

Katarzyna (Kasia in short) Budzynska is an associate professor (senior lecturer) in the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Poland), and a lecturer & Dundee fellow at Computing at the University of Dundee (UK). Her work focuses on communication structures of argumentation, dialogue and ethos. She is a member of the Centre for Argument Technology (ARG-tech) and a head of Computational Ethos Lab (CELab) which develops technologies for extracting, processing and visualising the information about the character of speakers. Budzynska has published 2 books and over 70 peer-reviewed papers, amongst which 19 appeared in international journals such as “Artificial Intelligence”, “Argumentation” and “ACM Transactions on Internet Technology”.  In 2008, she co-founded, and has since then, coordinated the activities of a nationwide initiative ArgDiaP the main goal of which is to support the cooperation of representatives of the Polish School of Argumentation.

Kamila Debowska-Kozlowska, Department of Pragmatics of English, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań Poland
Tutorial: Introduction to argumentation theory across disciplines: Linguistics and psychology (Introductory Tutorial 2, with Budzynska)
Abstract

Kamila Debowska-Kozlowska is Assistant Professor in the Department of Pragmatics of English at the Faculty of English at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland. She works on argumentation and persuasion from the perspective of experimental, cognitive, affective, linguistic and social pragmatics. She has published in top journals such as Argumentation and has given talks on her research in The Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, UK and Australia where she has cooperated with other researchers in argumentation and cognitive linguistics. She is a member of a nationwide initiative ArgDiaP that supports the cooperation of representatives of the Polish School of Argumentation. She is a co-organiser of Warsaw Reasoning Week that will take place in Warsaw, Poland in September 2018.

(2) COMMA tutors

Francesca Toni, Department of Computing, Imperial College London UK
Tutorial: Machine arguing: theories, systems and applications (COMMA Tutor 1)
Abstract

Francesca Toni is Professor in Computational Logic in the Department of Computing, Imperial College London, UK, and the funder and leader of the CLArg (Computational Logic and Argumentation) research group. Her research interests lie within the broad area of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence, and in particular include Argumentation, Logic-Based Multi-Agent Systems, Logic Programming for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Non-monotonic and Default Reasoning. She graduated, summa cum laude, in Computing at the University of Pisa, Italy, in 1990, and received her PhD in Computing in 1995, from Imperial College London. She has coordinated two EU projects, received funding from EPSRC and the EU, and awarded a Senior Research Fellowship from The Royal Academy of Engineering and the Leverhulme Trust. She is currently Technical Director of the ROAD2H EPSRC-funded project. She has co-chaired ICLP2015 (the 31st International Conference on Logic Programming), is currently co-chair of KR 2018 (the 16th Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning). She is a member of the steering committe of AT (Agreement Technologies), the Executive Committee of the Board of ALP (the Association for Logic Programming), corner editor on Argumentation for the Journal of Logic and Computation, and in the editorial board of the Argument and Computation journal and the AI journal.

Marcello D’Agostino, Department of Philosophy, University of Milan Italy
Tutorial: Depth-bounded reasoning and formal argumentation (COMMA Tutor 2)
Abstract

Marcello D’Agostino is currently Professor of Logic at the Dept. of Philosophy, University of Milan, Italy. From 1987 to 1991 he was a doctoral student at the Computing Laboratory, University of Oxford where received his Ph.D. with a thesis on the computational complexity of logical calculi. After his PhD he was employed with research positions at the Department of Computing, Imperial College, London (1991-1995), in the Logic and Computation Group directed by D.M. Gabbay. He then moved to the University of Ferrara in 1996 as assistant professor and qualified as full professor in 2001. In 2015 he moved to the University of Milan where he is now Director of the Doctoral school in Philosophy and human sciences.

(3) Warsaw tutors

Barbara Dunin-Kęplicz, Institute of Informatics, University of Warsaw Poland
Tutorial: Realistic models of beliefs in a paraconsistent and paracomplete setting (Warsaw Tutor 1, with Szalas)
Abstract

Barbara Dunin-Kęplicz is a full Professor of Computer Science at the Institute of Informatics of University of Warsaw and, formerly, also at the Institute of Computer Science of Polish Academy of Sciences. Her research interests concentrate around logics in computer science and artificial intelligence, including paraconsistent, paracomplete and doxastic reasoning. She works on unconventional models used in reasoning about dialogues and action and change. She is a recognised expert in multiagent systems and one of the pioneers in the area of modelling BDI systems. She co-authored a book “Teamwork in multiagent systems. A formal approach” and published over 100 journal and conference papers as well as book chapters.

Andrzej Szalas, Institute of Informatics, University of Warsaw and Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Linköping, Sweden Poland & Sweden
Tutorial: Realistic models of beliefs in a paraconsistent and paracomplete setting (Warsaw Tutor 1, with Dunin-Kęplicz)
Abstract

Andrzej Szałas is a full Professor of computer science at the Institute of Informatics of Warsaw University, Poland and at the Department of Computer and Information Science of Linköping University, Sweden. He works in the area of logics in computer science and artificial intelligence. His scientific interests include non-classical logics, second-order logic, paraconsistent and paracomplete reasoning, commonsense reasoning, approximate reasoning, modal and doxastic reasoning, rule languages, databases and descriptive complexity. He (co-)authored 6 books and over 130 journal and conference papers. He is also a consultant for IT companies.

Dariusz Kalociński, Institute of Philosophy, University of Warsaw Poland
Tutorial: Modelling semantic negotiation (Warsaw Tutor 2)
Abstract

Dariusz Kalociński is an assistant professor in the Institute of Philosophy at the University of Warsaw (Poland), affiliated with the Department of Logic. Currently, he is a postdoctoral researcher in the Social Models of Semantics Learning: Acquisition and Evolution of Quantifier Meaning project, led by Nina Gierasimczuk, and funded by the Polish National Science Centre (NCN). His research interests lie in language learning and language evolution, especially in the context of more abstract semantic entitites such as quantifiers. He is interested in how various pressures, such as social influence or communicative efficiency, help shaping natural language, and how this influence might be captured in formal models. Apart from language-related topics, his work focuses on computability theory, including computational complexity and recursive function theory.

Dominik Sypniewski, Faculty of Administration and Social Sciences, Warsaw University of Technology Poland
Tutorial: Argumentation in practice: negotiating the legal conditions of real estate contracts (Warsaw Tutor 3)
Abstract

Dr Dominik Sypniewski is a head of real estate&constructions practice in Góralski&Goss Legal. His professional expertise covers administrative law issues related particularly to real estate, the investment and construction process (zoning and construction law) and real estate transactions of different type. He is also assistant Professor at the Faculty of Administration and Social Science of the Warsaw University of Technology. He graduated law at Warsaw University as well as public economics at the Warsaw School of Economics. During his academic career he was a visiting scholar at Georgetown University Law Centre as a fellow of Polish-U.S. Fulbright Commission and short-term visiting lecturer in Turkey, Portugal, Estonia and South Korea. Author of He has written many publications on real estate and administrative law and co-authored a commentary on Construction Law (LexisNexis) and template letters, filings and agreements related to real estate and the investment and construction process (Wolters Kluwer). Member of Warsaw Bar Association.

(4) SSA tutors

Manfred Stede, Discourse Research Lab, University of Potsdam Germany
Tutorial: Argumentative Microtexts: A multi-layer and multi-purpose corpus for theoretical and applied studies of argumentation (SSA Tutor 1)
Abstract

Manfred Stede is a professor of Applied Computational Linguistics at the University of Potsdam/Germany, where he directs the Discourse Research Lab. His work revolves around different aspects of discourse structure, and in recent years has focused on the manual and automatic annotation of argumentative structures. Much of this work used the “argumentative microtext corpus”, which is a collection of short texts that have been annotated on a variety of different layers and thus allow for studying argumentation from different angles. Other current research projects investigate the role of discourse connectives for shallow discourse parsing, and the differences in creating coherence in spoken versus written language, and with social media as an in-between mode.

Tim Norman, Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton UK
Tutorial: Argument in Human-Agent Teams (SSA Tutor 2)
Abstract

Tim Norman is Professor of Computer Science and Head of the Agents, Interaction and Complexity Group at the University of Southampton. He read Electronic and Electrical Engineering at University of Wales, Swansea, then graduated in 1997 with a Ph.D. in Computer Science from University College London in the area of AI planning and scheduling. In 2000 he organised (with Chris Reed) the Symposium on Argument and Computation in Pitlochry, Perthshire, which brought together experts from across philosophy, law, logic, linguistics and computer science to explore and develop interdisciplinary research across these fields, and made some small contribution to the establishment of the COMMA series of conferences and the Argument and Computation Journal. His research interests in this area include the formal characterisation of imperatives, communicative norms, and models of deliberative dialogue. More recently he has been working with professional analysts to explore how representations of defeasible inference and the use of automated reasoning methods can support analyst teams where judgements entail a high risk of error in decision making. One important aim of this work is to develop community-driven open-source tools for the use of argumentation in real-world applications; see www.cispaces.org.

Floris Bex, Department of Information and Computing Sciences (ICS), Utrecht University & Tilburg Institute for Law and Society (TILT), Tilburg University Netherlands
Tutorial: Evidential and Legal Reasoning in AI – the role of argumentation (SSA Tutor 3)
Abstract

Floris Bex is Professor of Data Science and the Judiciary (TILT) and Assistant Professor Intelligent Systems (ICS). He is interested in how people reason, how this reasoning can be captured in formal models and how it can be supported and improved using AI technologies. His main area of investigation are the computational, philosophical, linguistic and legal aspects of argumentation, linking mathematical models with more natural representations of argument and discourse. Floris is keen to improve argumentation practice by developing tools that can be used to analyse and make transparent complex reasoning involving (big) data. His main application area concerns legal & forensic reasoning.

Jean Goodwin, Department of Communication , North Carolina State University US
Tutorial: Argumentative dialogues without dialogue types (SSA Tutor 4)
Abstract

Jean Goodwin is SAS Institute Distinguished Professor of Communication at North Carolina State University, and a member of the Leadership in Public Science cluster. Her work is in rhetoric, focusing on civic argumentation and in particular on the communication of science in policy controversies, on the normative dimensions of arguing, and on the reasonableness of taking an expert’s statements on trust. Goodwin received her bachelor’s degree in mathematics and her J.D. from the University of Chicago, and her Ph.D. in communication arts from the rhetoric program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her essays have been published in international journals in communication, philosophy and the sciences. She has served as a consultant on initiatives by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Union of Concerned Scientists to define the appropriate roles of scientists as advocates.

Martín Pereira-Fariña, Department of Philosophy and Anthropology, University of Santiago de Compostela Spain
Tutorial: Introduction to R for argument mining (SSA Tutor 5)
Abstract

Martín Pereira-Fariña is a post-doctoral researcher in the Faculty of Philosophy at University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain). He received his bachelor’s degree in philosophy and his Ph.D. in computer science at the same university. His work is mainly focused on different theoretical aspects of argumentation and word and sentence similarity in a dialogical context. He is also contributing to the development of computational tools for argument mining in R. More recently, he is involved in the investigation of the role of argumentation in cultural heritage research; in particular, the use ethos in public debates about contested monuments and the connection between argument structure and conceptual modelling. He has published more than 20 papers in international conferences and journals in the fields of philosophy, argumentation and computer science.

Introduction to argumentation theory across disciplines: AI and law

The subject of the tutorial is the modeling of legal argumentation by means of formal and computational tools. We will investigate to what extent legal argumentation may be represented in an algorithmic manner and what are the current possibilities in this respect. The point of departure will be given by classical legal syllogism and then we will investigate how tools developed in the field of AI and law such as rule-based systems, argumentation frameworks, and argumentation schemes may be fruitfully applied to cover different aspects of legal reasoning. In the final part, we will consider the application of Machine Learning tools to the subject in question.

Introduction to argumentation theory across disciplines: Computer science and computational linguistics

In this tutorial, I will present recently rapidly growing area of argumentation in computer science and computational linguistics – argument mining. It is built upon text mining which provides techniques and methods for automated extraction of information from texts in natural language. The expansion of text mining is a response to the problem of Big Data, i.e. the problem of data being produced faster than we can process it.

More specifically – what can we mine? In sentiment analysis, we mine attitudes (positive, neutral, negative) towards something, e.g. we try to identify on Internet fora a number of people who like a new Mercedes vs. a number of people who does not like new Mercedes (application: stock market). In opinion mining, we mine people's opinions about products, e.g. people can think new Mercedes is too expensive or people can think new Mercedes is reliable (application: media analysis). The new area of argument mining allows for recognising not only what opinions people hold, but also why they hold them, e.g. people can think that new Mercedes is too expensive, because other cars from the similar class cost significantly less.

Introduction to argumentation theory across disciplines: Linguistics and psychology

This tutorial focuses on the psycholinguistic aspect of the studies on persuasion. The focal point of the talk is the concept of attitude defined as a global favourable, unfavourable or neutral evaluation of an attitude object (e.g. a social issue). The role of pathos (i.e. emotional reactions) in the generation and modification of an attitude is unravelled on the basis of the symbolic and ideological approach. The tutorial explains why an attitude system comprises beliefs, emotions, values, intentions to behave and describes the links between those elements. Persuasion models are presented that clarify how a conflict between internal attitude elements might enhance or hamper persuasive attempts. External aspects of an attitude change such as ethos (i.e. persuader’s credibility) and pathos (i.e. emotional message appeals) and their relation to internal cognitive elements of an attitude are also pursued. Direct and indirect attitude measurement techniques in psycholinguistic research are discussed. Basic principles of research design on attitude change are explained (e.g. controlling the confounding variables) and the implementation of a computerised experiment that measures attitudes in the E-Prime software (i.e. constructing an experiment, pilot testing, formal data collection) is shown.

Machine arguing: theories, systems and applications

Within AI, argumentation is about empowering machines with the capability to argue, so as to resolve conflicts, fill gaps in incomplete information and provide explanations for any outcomes obtained by machine arguing. In this tutorial I will overview a variety of existing theories for modeling argumentation in AI, including abstract, (some forms of) bipolar and (some forms of) structured argumentation frameworks, under a variety of so-called semantics, ranging from extension-based, labelling-based, and gradual semantics; I will also touch upon extensions of these frameworks with preferences and probabilities. I will then provide an overview and hands-on session on a number of argumentation systems, including abaplus, Arg&Dec and proxdd and abagraph (all available here). I will conclude with an illustration of a number of concrete applications of machine arguing, in medical, legal and social settings.

Realistic models of beliefs in a paraconsistent and paracomplete setting

In the presence of dynamically changing real-world data, humans, robots and software agents have to cope with imperfect information. This issue manifests itself in incomplete and/or inconsistent information which, in turn, seriously affects a variety of beliefs different types of dialogues and argumentation are based on. Heuristic techniques for completing missing beliefs or disambiguating inconsistencies are inherently nonmonotonic. Traditional approaches to beliefs and non-monotonic reasoning suffer from high complexity. Moreover, belief changes/revisions, often needed in the course of dialogues, make the complexity even worse.

During the lecture we shall discuss an alternative approach where we make three important shifts: (a) using paraconsistent, paracomplete and modular rather than classical reasoning; (b) querying belief bases rather than applying logical entailment; (c) using belief shadowing rather than belief updates/revisions. We will present a tractable framework for belief bases and belief shadowing, based on a doxastic extension of a four-valued, rule-based language 4QL. The language allows for paraconsistent, paracomplete and modular reasoning, and provides a simple to use tools for lightweight forms of nonmonotonic as reasoning with incomplete and/or inconsistent beliefs. The framework enjoys an open-source implementation and is ready for experimental and educational use.

The presented techniques will be illustrated by applications to speech acts specifications and their use in selected forms of dialogues. We will also indicate research directions which may be interesting for the Argdiap community.

Realistic models of beliefs in a paraconsistent and paracomplete setting

In the presence of dynamically changing real-world data, humans, robots and software agents have to cope with imperfect information. This issue manifests itself in incomplete and/or inconsistent information which, in turn, seriously affects a variety of beliefs different types of dialogues and argumentation are based on. Heuristic techniques for completing missing beliefs or disambiguating inconsistencies are inherently nonmonotonic. Traditional approaches to beliefs and non-monotonic reasoning suffer from high complexity. Moreover, belief changes/revisions, often needed in the course of dialogues, make the complexity even worse.

During the lecture we shall discuss an alternative approach where we make three important shifts: (a) using paraconsistent, paracomplete and modular rather than classical reasoning; (b) querying belief bases rather than applying logical entailment; (c) using belief shadowing rather than belief updates/revisions. We will present a tractable framework for belief bases and belief shadowing, based on a doxastic extension of a four-valued, rule-based language 4QL. The language allows for paraconsistent, paracomplete and modular reasoning, and provides a simple to use tools for lightweight forms of nonmonotonic as reasoning with incomplete and/or inconsistent beliefs. The framework enjoys an open-source implementation and is ready for experimental and educational use.

The presented techniques will be illustrated by applications to speech acts specifications and their use in selected forms of dialogues. We will also indicate research directions which may be interesting for the Argdiap community.

Modelling semantic negotiation

This tutorial will focus on several approaches to computational modelling of semantic negotiation. The main goal of such models is to provide a high-level, computational or algorithmic description of hypothetical mechanisms by which communicating agents can arrive at similar semantic representations. Apart from that, such models help us understand how various pressures (social, cognitive, environmental) might affect semantic negotiation and shape emerging meanings. We will look at models of meaning coordination between dyads (pairs of agents) and at population-level dynamics. Our toolbox will include methods and algorithms from diverse domains: Markov chains, computer simulations, reinforcement learning, evolutionary game theory, signalling games etc.

Argumentation in practice: negotiating the legal conditions of real estate contracts

Can the art of argumentation be useful in the practice of negotiating contracts? During the tutorial there will be presented two cases regarding the course of negotiations of business and legal conditions of two real estate transactions. In the first case, one party of the negotiations has a stronger position, in the other parties will have equal negotiating positions. Relations between business assumptions and the proposed legal conditions and their justification will be presented. During the tutorial, I will also show argumentative tactics in the selection of arguments and their types, presenting them in specific phases of negotiations, as well as examples of the use of defence tactics.

Argumentative Microtexts: A multi-layer and multi-purpose corpus for theoretical and applied studies of argumentation

In this tutorial, we first introduce an annotation scheme for the structure of argumentation in texts, and students will practice with annotating sample texts, which offer different kinds of difficulties. We then turn to the task of building these structures automatically and present two different technical approaches for doing so. Finally, we look "beyond" the bare tree structures that represent the argumentative relations (different kinds of support and attack) between units, and we consider additional layers of annotation that enrich the explanatory power: argumentation schemes, implicit assumptions, and certain semantic aspects of the textual units.

Argument in Human-Agent Teams

A key aim underpinning the development of computational models of argument is to build systems that are effective in support of human interaction and decision-making. Achieving this certainly depends upon an understanding of how people argue and how computational models reflect good argumentative reasoning. Equally, however, we must understand how tools based on these insights have impact on individual and group behaviour. In this tutorial, I will explore the potential for argumentation-based models in support of human-agent teams. Support both for dialogue and for reasoning will be considered, and we will have a hands-on session with a tool developed for intelligence analysis (CISpaces).

Evidential and Legal Reasoning in AI - the role of argumentation

There are many techniques in the broad field of Artificial Intelligence that focus on legal decision-making, legal reasoning and reasoning with legal evidence. For example, statistical algorithms have been proposed to predict decisions by judges in the European Court of Human Rights, and Bayesian Networks have been applied to reasoning with legal evidence. The question we will ask ourselves during the tutorial is: what is the role of argumentation? Are arguments necessary, and are computational techniques based on argumentation useful? We will explore these questions through hands-on exercises in which we will study and model the arguments in different legal cases.

Argumentative dialogues without dialogue types

Pragmatic theories model argumentation as dialogues among agents in which standpoints are advanced and challenged. These theories encourage us to shift attention from formalizations of (informal) logics to formalizations of social practices. One common approach assumes that dialogues come in types determined by goals, having rules that ensure the goals will be reached. This presentation lays out an alternative approach—one that does not invoke dialogue types, common goals or pre-established rules. According to the normative pragmatic program, the orderly exchange of arguments is an achievement of the agents themselves; it is designed. In particular, agents create local norms governing their interaction by taking on carefully tailored responsibilities for what they are saying. We will consider two paradigm cases: how experts give their utterances authoritative force, and how advocates create circumstances in which their proposals will receive serious consideration. In addition, we will test out the the normative pragmatic approach by applying it to ordinary argumentative discourse.

Introduction to R for argument mining

R is a language programming that has been gaining importance in the last years, especially in those fields different from computer science, such as linguistics, humanities or social sciences, because it is simple, powerful and free. In this tutorial, we first introduce the basic data types, programming structures and graphical resources in R oriented to natural language processing and argument mining. Next, we will practice with sample texts some basic tasks in argument mining (such as segmentation, searching of discourse indicators, etc.) and how the results can be presented using different kinds of visualisations.