I'm going to do a mini-project about formalizing arguments in argumentation maps

[gusl]

I'm going to do a mini-project about formalizing arguments in argumentation maps. I am going to specify a system that aids the argument-mapper in his task of formalizing an argument in text form. My system will automatically create links between two boxes (statements) when the relationship between them is obvious (e.g. "therefore" in between), and, if not sure about what the relationship is, it will leave it up to the human user. For example, there are times when it's ambiguous whether a logical relationship is implied between two sentences.

e.g. "John left the army. He went crazy." Are these related? If so, which one is meant as the cause? Ok, this is not really an argument, but I think it's a related problem.

Can you suggest any ambiguous arguments?

Comments

[rainbrot.livejournal.com]

Here's one that isn't always considered ambiguous, but probably should be, given what is known:
"Many sex offenders say they are addicted to pornography and that pornography influenced their crimes. Pornography causes sex crimes."

Is that the sort of thing you're looking for?

Here's are some related statements:
Many sex offenders say they are addicted to pornography.
Many sex offenders say that pornography influenced their criminal behavior.
Pornography causes sex crimes.
People predisposed to sex crimes may be more likely than average to look at pornography.
People predisposed to sex crimes likely have poor impulse control and may consequently be more prone to addiction.
People are often more comfortable blaming influences than accepting responsibility.
Many people who enjoy pornography do not commit sex crimes.
The rate of reported sex crimes is higher in areas with strict laws controlling pornography.
People may be more prone to commit sex crimes in sexually repressed environments.
People may be more tolerant of sexual offenses if they are exposed to pornography.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

hm... I'm looking for ambiguities of natural language.

I could certainly construct an argument map from what you gave me, but you don't seem to be putting together statements the argue towards the conclusion. I'm looking for something more flowy.

I'm not sure yet if I should focus on resolving anaphoras (like "this") or on implied relationships between sentences (the latter seems more interesting).

[rainbrot.livejournal.com]

Oh... language ambiguities. Oops. I wasn't presenting just one argument with those statements -- they actually represent conflicting ideas surrounding ambiguous information. Not particularly useful for what you're doing.