Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Argotario: Computational Argumentation Meets Serious Games

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1707.06002 v1 pith:LYU7MWMH submitted 2017-07-19 cs.CL

Argotario: Computational Argumentation Meets Serious Games

classification cs.CL
keywords argumentationargotariofallaciesseriousfallaciousgamesabilityaccessible
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

An important skill in critical thinking and argumentation is the ability to spot and recognize fallacies. Fallacious arguments, omnipresent in argumentative discourse, can be deceptive, manipulative, or simply leading to `wrong moves' in a discussion. Despite their importance, argumentation scholars and NLP researchers with focus on argumentation quality have not yet investigated fallacies empirically. The nonexistence of resources dealing with fallacious argumentation calls for scalable approaches to data acquisition and annotation, for which the serious games methodology offers an appealing, yet unexplored, alternative. We present Argotario, a serious game that deals with fallacies in everyday argumentation. Argotario is a multilingual, open-source, platform-independent application with strong educational aspects, accessible at www.argotario.net.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Truth or Sophistry? LoFa: A Benchmark for LLM Robustness Against Logical Fallacies

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LoFa is a new benchmark and LFR@k metric for measuring LLM resistance to sustained logical fallacy attacks via generated question-argument pairs and debate simulations.