Expectations for Electronic Debate Platforms as a Function of Application Domain

Abdulrahman Alqahtani Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications www.ijera.com
ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 6, Issue 1, (Part - 3) January 2016, pp.30-44
www.ijera.com 30|P a g e
Expectations for Electronic Debate Platforms as a Function of
Application Domain
Abdulrahman Alqahtani1,2
, Marius Silaghi2
(1Department of Computer Science, Najran University, Najran, Saudi Arabia)
(2Department of Computer Science, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, USA)
ABSTRACT
Electronic debate (or commenting) platforms are used with many types of online applications, as a way to
engage the users or to provide enhancements, e.g., based on some type of collaborative filtering [1], [2]. The
applications enhanced with such debate platforms range widely : news, products, sport, religion, politics, etc.
Therefore, the emerging question is whether it is possible to make one electronic debate mechanism good for all
applications, and whether the studies on the success of a debate mechanism in one domain do automatically
apply to other application domains. Here we compare two traditional application domains of electronic debate
platforms: product evaluation and commented news. We exploit the fact that most users are very familiar with
both types of such applications, and therefore surveys can be designed to gauge reliably subtle differences
between expectations and properties of these domains. Based on over 1000 responses to surveys described here,
we are able to report statistically significant differences between the user behavior and expectations in the
studied domains.
Keywords - Application Domains for Debates, Evaluation of the Impact of Threading Models, Methodology,
and Results
I. INTRODUCTION
Even before Internet users were heavily engaged
in social networks like Facebook and Twitter, many
of them were attracted by social applications, such as
commented news, that drew significant participation
and activism in the early 2000s [3]–[5]. Various other
applications of electronic debates emerged in the
same period of time, such as product reviews and
evaluation used for collaborative filtering on online
stores like Amazon or Recommendation sites like
Yelp. While these may be some of the most
transitionally used applications of debates, a large
number of other applications appeared to varied
domains such as: political, religious, science, and
education reviews [6]. Various foundations support
open software development for supporting comments
and debates to be associated to blogs and online news
channels, as a way to promoting civil engagement
and a civil society [7]. Given the effort spent by
developers and foundations to build electronic debate
mechanisms, the question arises on whether one
platform fits it all, or it has to be adjusted to the
actual domain.
In this research we compare properties and
expectations user have from two different and well
established domains of application for electronic
debates. In particular, we use surveys to investigate
the expectations and behavior of users with respect to
product evaluation comments, and to commented
news. The results of these surveys are used to detect
relevant differences between the studied domains.
II. BACKGROUND
Open electronic debate platforms can be used with
application domains, from politics to entertainment,
e.g. Slashdot [5]. News articles or product
descriptions can each be associated with a forum.
Some studies have focused on the impact of online
comments as being open news by themselves [5]. We
address the issue of management for such open
electronic debate platforms. Namely, of the impact of
their organization (e.g., threading model) on the
quality of user experience (relevance, redundancy,
diversity, importance, clarity, efficiency). We are
investigating the user expectation and beliefs
concerning platforms for comments concerning
products evaluations and news articles. In certain
decision making fora (such as parliaments, or
electronically in DirectDemocracyP2P), a debate
focuses on a clear motion (i.e., proposal of a
decision) that is relevant to a given organization.
Users can vote on it with justifications [1], [2], [8].
We differentiate between debates and brainstorming
sessions, namely where a question and its possible
answers were not yet crystallized. The regular
discussions commonly available with blogs and
electronic news are classified as brainstorming
sessions, while discussions associated with common
polls, news reviews and petition drives platforms are
classified as debates. Understanding of the given
problem is improved as the user gets acquaintance
with the relevant justification provided by other
participants. An essential ingredient comes from the
RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS

correct evaluation of the importance of a justification
as yielded by the number of participants supporting
it. Another important factor in catalyzing the
understanding of a justification is the intensity with
which each participant supports that justification. In
electronic debates, users can support somebody else’s
justification as an alternative to
Providing his/her own justification. Justifications
with large support can be favored by viewers, as they
may better represent the opinion of the group. A
further mechanism to help users locate relevant
justifications is based on threading. Namely, new
justifications can point to old justifications that they
claim to refute or enhance. Thereby people
visualizing old justifications are notified of the
presence of the refutation and enhancement claims.
In a DDP2P application, all debates and arguments
with news have to be related to a motion in a given
organization. The user can vote on any with only one
justification and he/she can post news linked to
motions or justifications [9], [10]. The mechanism of
disseminating motions can be used to help the
community converge towards enhanced versions of a
motion. Discovery of better versions of a motion can
be boosted by an appropriate threading mechanism,
with each new motion referring back to previous
motions on which it claims to improve. These
references create a thread that can be traversed by a
user, or can be used by automatic reasoning tools
helping users in locating promising motions. Namely,
if a majority of peer members disagree with a motion
that the user has earlier believed to be good, he may
reconsider his position on the motion. The peers
could have potentially discovered problems with that
motion, problems communicated via justifications
that can make the constituent withdraw his/her
support. Withdrawing support for an unpopular
motion will save the time of the other constituents
who will be less tempted to spend time reading it, and
this will help the organization to save the resources
needed to move on the proposal and organize an
official ballot [10], [11]. Common alternatives when
voting on a motion are Support, Oppose, and Abstain.
However, each submitted motion can be customized
to allow for any set of possible reactions as
appreciated by the author of the motion. Poor choices
are supposed to be correctable by enhancements. As
previously explained, the understanding of the
opinion of one’s peers can be further improved by
enabling the submitter of votes to associate a
justification of their support or opposition to the
motion. Threading and thumbs (common technical
term) in fora are used for training an automatic
moderator [12].
III. METHODOLOGY
There are several application domains for
debates, function of the addressed topic:
• Online Products: Online products sellers asking
customers to leave a review/comment on their
site exist.
• Online News: Readers of the online news
posting comments on a news article.
• Religion: People sharing information about their
religious beliefs.
• Science: People raising concerns related to the
significance and correctness of scientific issues.
• Politics: People sharing information about their
political beliefs.
• Sports: Comments and arguments around news
concerning sports.
We used surveys to extract the properties of two
type of these domains of debates, and to see the
differences in their rules as expected and deemed
appropriate by users.
A. Evaluation of the Impact of Threading
Models on Electronic Debate
We conducted online studies from March to
November 2015 in which we presented a survey to
participants and asked them to answer its questions
using the Survey Monkey platform. In our study we
use the technique of submitting the questions in an
online survey to collect the data from online users.
We designed and distributed questionnaires in a
couple of languages.
B. Study Questions:
Study questions contained three groups [13]:
• Participation Agreement
The first question in our survey is a participation
agreement. Participation is voluntary.
• General Information:
We collected general information like gender, age
range, secondary language, and level of education to
evaluate our survey population.
 Understanding Questions:
Participants answered a chain of multiple choice
questions to determine the factors that attract the
users while reading or taping reviews
(comments/threads) for any online news.
C. Goals of Our Survey :
The purpose of our surveys is to:
• Evaluate how comments for product evaluation
differ from online news.
• Gather suggestion of how to improve user
interfaces for corresponding debate applications.
IV. COMPARISON AND RESULTS
We had designed and distributed two surveys
with same types of questions for two domains of
electronic debate which were Online Products and

Online news as shown in Figure 1. We used the
surveys technique to compare between those types of
domain by finding the similarities and differences of
the choices of each question of these surveys.
A. Participation Agreement (Institutional
Review Board (IRB) )
The first question in our surveys for both
domains (products and news) asked the user to accept
a participation agreement.
We asked: Do you agree to the above terms? By
clicking Yes, you consent that you are willing to
answer the questions in this survey. Analysis: Most
of the participants accepted to answer the questions
in our survey. This was an easy question because this
question confirmed the participation in our survey.
Figure 1: Result of Similarities and Differences
Between our Two studies Domains
B. General Information:
In our surveys, there were some questions about
general information. Every question had to fulfill the
purpose of the study. These questions are about:
Gender, Age, and Education.
1) Gender: This question aimed to know who were
more interesting in the debate, men or women.
This question will help to structure debate user
interfaces (DDP2P applications) according to the
interaction of humans.
We asked: What is your gender?
Key Finding:
 First Survey (Online Products)
- 78.5 percent of participants were male.
- 21.5 percent of participants were female.
 Second Survey (Online News)
- 81.3 percent of participants were male.
- 18.7 percent of participants were female.
• Similarities between these two surveys (Online
Products and Online News) in this question.
- Male: The similarity between online products
and online news was 96.05 percent for first chose
of gender question which was male.
- Female: The similarity between online products
and online news was 84.07 percent for second
chose of gender question which was female.
• Differences between these two surveys (Online
- Male: The difference between online products
of gender question which was male.
- Female: The difference between online products
and online news was 15.93 percent for second
chose of gender question which was female.
 Analysis:
Results of this question were similar for both
domains of the debate (Online Products and Online
news).
Both gender of participants were interesting to
involve (male and female) for both studied domains
of electronic debates as shown in Figure 2. This
question will lead to focusing on both gender, by
using ads, news, topics, etc., in a debate user
interface (DDP2P applications), in order to attract
them into successful debates.
Figure 2 Result of The Gender of Participants.
2) Age Range:
This question targeted the age range of
participants who are willing to debate.
We asked: What is your age range?

Key Finding:
• First Survey (Online Products)
- 4.3 percent of participants were less than 20
years.
- 30.3 percent of participants were read between
20 and 30 years.
- 50.3 percent of participants were over than 30
years.
• Second Survey (Online Products)
- 4.8 percent of participants were less than 20
years.
- 46.3 percent of participants were between 20 and
30 years.
- 48.9 percent of participants were over than 30
years.
Products and Online News) for this question.
- Less than 20 years: The similarity between
online products and online news was 71 percent
for first chose of the age range question which
was less than 20 years of the age range of
participants.
- Between 20 and 30 years: The similarity
between Online products and online news was
97 percent for first chose of the age range
question which was between 20 and 30 years of
the age range of participants.
- Over than 30 years: The similarity between
for third chose of the age range question which
was over than 30 years of the age range of
participants.
Products and Online News) for this question.
- Less than 20 years: The difference between
for first chose of the age range question which
was less than 20 years of the age range of
participants.
- Between 20 and 30 years: The difference
2.3 percent for first chose of the age range
question which was between 20 and 30 years of
the age range of participants.
- Over than 30 years: The difference between
for third chose of the age range question which
was over than 30 years of the age range of
participants.
Analysis: Results of this question were similar for
both domains of the debate (Online Products and
Online news) as shown in Figure 3. The greatest age
range of participants, who were willing to debate in
this study, was older than 30, then between 20 and
30.
This question gave us the age range of
participants whom we should focus on when we
improve the user interface of DDP2P applications.
Figure 3 Result of the Age Range of Participants:
Similarities and Differences between our Two
Studies Domains.
3) Secondary Language:
The secondary language question aimed to
discover which languages are the most popular in our
studies domain of the electronic debate as shown in
Figure 4.
We asked: What is your secondary language, if any?
Key Finding:
- 78.5 percent of participants whose second
language was English.
language was Chinese.
language was French.
language was Spanish.
language was Other.
• Second Survey (Online News)
language was English.
language was Chinese.
language was French.
language was Spanish.
language was Other.

- English: The Similarity between Online
products and online news was 92.3 percent for
first chose of the secondary language question
which was English.
- Chinese: The Similarity between Online
products and online news was 27 percent for first
chose of the secondary language question which
was Chinese.
- French: The Similarity between Online products
and online news was 61 percent for first chose of
the secondary language question which was
French.
- Spanish: The Similarity between Online
was Spanish.
- Other: The Similarity between Online products
the secondary language question which were
Other languages.
- English: The difference between online products
the secondary language question which was
English.
- Chinese: The difference between online
products and online news was 73 percent for
second chose of the secondary language question
which was Chinese.
- French: The difference between online products
and online news was 39 percent for third chose
of the secondary language question which was
French.
- Spanish: The difference between online
fourth chose of the secondary language question
which was Spanish.
- Other: The difference between online products
and online news was 38 percent for fifth chose of
the secondary language question which were
Other languages.
Analysis: We found English was the most popular
language in our study in both domains of the debate,
but there were a degree of differences between these
two studied domains of the electronic debate. From
this question, in DDP2P applications, we will suggest
using English as a formal language to communicate
between users. Also, we will put English as the
default user interface for DDP2P applications.
Figure 4 Result of the Secondary Language of
Participants: Similarities and Differences between
our Two Studies Domains.
4) Level of the Education:
The level of education question referred to the impact
of level of education on the debate.
We asked: What is your education level?
Key Finding:
• First Survey (Online Products):
- 15 percent of participants have a High School
degree
- 51.1 percent of participants have a Bachelor’s
degree
- 27.1 percent of participants have a Master’s
degree
- 6.8 percent of participants have a Ph.D degree
- 15.2 percent of participants have a High School
degree
- 48.3 percent of participants have a Bachelor’s
degree
- 26.7 percent of participants have a Master’s
degree
- 9.8 percent of participants have a Ph.D degree
- High School: The Similarity between Online
chose of the educational level question which
was High School degree.
- Bachelor: The Similarity between Online
second chose of the educational level question
which was Bachelor’s degree.
- Master: The Similarity between Online products
of the educational level question which was
Master’s degree.

- Ph.D: The Similarity between Online products
and online news was 79 percent for fourth chose
of the educational level question which was Ph.D
degree.
- High School: The difference between online
was High School degree.
- Bachelor: The difference between Online
products and online news was one percent for
second chose of the educational level question
was Bachelor’s degree.
- Master: The difference between online products
and online news was 9 percent for third chose of
the educational level question which was
master’s degree.
- Ph.D: The difference between online products
and online news was 21 percent for fourth chose
the educational level question which was Ph.D
degree.
Analysis: The results of this question were similar
both domains of electronic debate. In both surveys,
we found that most participants have a Bachelor’s
degree for different domains of the debate as shown
in Figure 5.
This question showed us that most participants
could be familiar with any updates or developments
for improving the user interface of DDP2P
applications because the majority of participants had
a Bachelor’s degree.
Figure 5 Result of the educational level of
Participants: Similarities and Differences between
our Two Studies Domains.
C. Reading the Comments/threads Question:
The scope of this research focused on
comments/threads for tow domains of electronic
debate. Also, we put this question as test the validity
of our online surveys. The validity question depended
on asking questions which measured what we were
supposed to be measuring. According to our results
of our online surveys participants, most of
participants would like to read the reviews
(comments/threads) for product before they bought it.
Also, majority of participants would like to read
comments/threads for a news article after they read
article online.
We asked: How likely would you read a product
reviews (comments/threads) before making a
decision to purchase it? How likely would you read a
news comments/threads) the comments/threads of a
news article after read article online?
Key Finding:
- 43.9 percent of participants usually read a
product review (comments/threads) before
making a decision to purchase it.
- 46.2 percent of participants sometimes read a
product review (comments/threads) before
making a decision to purchase it.
- 9.8 percent of participants never read a product
review (comments/threads) before making a
decision to purchase it.
- 19.8 percent of participants usually read the
comments/threads of a news article after read
article online.
- 73.5 percent of participants sometimes read the
article online.
- 6.7 percent of participants never read the
article online.
- Usually: The Similarity between Online
ﬁrst chose of reading the comments/threads
question which was usually.
- Sometimes: The Similarity between Online
second chose of reading the comments/threads
question which was sometimes.
- Usually: The difference between online products
of reading the comments/threads question which
was usually.
- Sometimes: The difference between online

second chose of reading the comments/threads
question was sometimes.
Analysis: The result of this question referred to
whether the majority of participants would read a
product review "Usually" or "Sometimes" as shown
in Figure 6. Whoever answered "Never" for this
question could not continue to the next series of
questions because the remaining questions focused
on actual readers of product reviews.
Figure 6 Result of Reading the comments/threads:
Studies Domains.
D. Threads Questions:
We have several questions which focused on
comments/threads between our two studies domains
which were online products and online news. Our
samples were the participants who read comments.
They were supposed to answer a chain of multiple
choice questions to determine the factors that attract
users while reading or taping comments/threads for
any comment/review. The results of those questions
will help us to improve GUI of the
DirectDemocracyP2P applications.
1) Trusting the Justifications:
We found that most of participants were trusted to
read a brief comments in both domains of platforms
debate as shown in Figure 7.
We asked: When you read comments on any online
product/news, what types of comments/threads do
you trust the most?
Key Finding:
• Fist Survey (Online Products)
- 53.9 percent of participants were trusted to read a
brief review.
long review.
- 9.0 percent of participants were not likely to trust
any online review
brief comments.
long comments.
- 34.2 percent of participants were not likely to
trust any online comments.
- Brief comments/threads: The Similarity
81 percent for first chose of trusting the
comments/threads question which was Brief
reviews/comments.
- Long comments/thread: The Similarity
60.3 percent for second chose of trusting the
comments/threads question which was long
reviews/comments.
- Both: The Similarity between Online products
and online news was 26.5 percent for third chose
of trusting the comments/threads question which
was Both (brief or long reviews/comments).
•Differences between these two surveys (Online
- Brief comments/threads: The difference
between online products and online news was 19
percent for first chose of trusting the
comments/threads question which was brief
comments/threads.
- Long comments/thread: The difference
39.7 percent for second chose of trusting the
comments/threads question was Long
comments/thread.
- Both: The difference between Online products
was both (brief or long reviews/comments).
Analysis: Designing the brief comments by limiting
the length of the motion will help to attract users to
debate according to the results of this question.
Limitation of the length of the debate arguments will
directly affect users’ acquisition and, in turn, trusting
the justifications about any given motion in the
DDP2P applications.
Figure 7 Result of trusting the comments/threads:
Studies Domains.

2) Sorting the Important Justification: Most
users would read up to 10 reviews according to
the results of our online surveys for both studies
domains as shown in Figure 8.
We asked: How many comments do you
normally read in association with an online
article/product, in case you start reading its
comments? Key Finding:
- 37.4 percent of participants read 5 or less
reviews before buying a specific product from an
online store.
online store.
- 20.8 percent of participants read more than 10
online store.
- 5.4 percent of participants do not read reviews
before buying a specific product from an online
store.
article, in case you start reading its comments.
- 24.8 percent of participants read more than 10
- Read 5 or less: The Similarity between Online
first chose of trusting the comments/threads
question which was read 5 or less
reviews/comments.
- Read 10 or less: The Similarity between Online
second chose of trusting the comments/threads
reviews/comments.
- Read more than 10: The Similarity between
Online products and online news was 84.5
percent for third chose of trusting the
comments/threads question which was read more
than 10 reviews/comments.
- Read 5 or less: The difference between online
comments/threads.
- Read 10 or less: The difference between online
question was read 5 or less comments/thread.
- Read more than 10: The difference between
online products and online news was 15.5
percent for first chose of trusting the
comments/threads question which was read more
than 10 reviews/comments.
Analysis: In both domains of studies, we found that
most of people would like to read less than 10
comments or reviews on any product or news. The
important justifications should appear in first ten
comments. In DDP2P applications, sorting the
important justifications among the top ten
justifications (around a given motion) will give the
user opportunity to read them.
Figure 8 Sorting the Important Justification
3) Separating the Justification:
The majority of participants were likely to read
any type of the arguments (Positive or Negative
comments) for both studies domains of electronic
debate as shown in Figure 9.
We asked: When you read comments for some
online news article, or reviews for online product, do
you focus on comments that are Positive, Negative or
both?
Key Finding:
- 11.8 percent of participants were likely to read
positive sides of arguments for any debate.
negative sides of arguments for any debate.
both sides of arguments (Positive or Negative
Reviews) for any debate.

- 9.6 percent of participants were likely to read the
comments that are agreed with the article.
the comments that are disagreed with the article.
the comments that are agreed with the user’s
opinion.
the comments that are disagreed with the user’s
opinion.
- Positive: The Similarity between Online
question which was reading positive
reviews/comments.
- Negative: The Similarity between Online
question which was reading negative
reviews/comments.
was reading both sides of arguments in
reviews/comments.
- Positive: The difference between online products
was reading positive comments/threads.
- Negative: The difference between online
question was reading negative
comments/threads.
- Both: The difference between online products
trusting the comments/threads question which
was reading both sides of arguments in
reviews/comments.
Analysis: In our results of this question, some people
would like to read positive side and other preferred to
read negative side, since most of people would like to
read both sides of arguments. Dividing the threads
into endorsements and oppositions comments may
help people to understanding others point of view in
the argument. In DDP2P applications, it has already
separated the justification on a motion whether
Support, Oppose, or Abstain.
Figure 9 Separating the Justification
4) Showing the number of Justifications and
Witnesses:
Most of participants agreed with the statement,
"Would a number of positive comments, the number
of readers, or other rating criteria, be enough for you
to trust a specific news from an online news?" since
the majority of participants disagreed with same
statement for online product domain as shown in
Figure 10.
We asked: Are a number of positive comments, the
number of readers, or other rating criteria, enough for
you to trust a specific product/news from an online?
Key Finding:
- 55.4 percent of participants answered (Yes).
- 44.6 percent of participants answered (No).
- 41.1 percent of participants answered (Yes).
- 59.0 percent of participants answered (No).
- Yes: The Similarity between Online products
of showing the number of the comments/threads
question which was yes.
- No: The Similarity between Online products and
online news was 76 percent for second chose of
showing the comments/threads question which
was no.
- Yes: The difference between online products and
online news was 25.7 percent for first chose of
showing the comments/threads question which
was yes.
- No: The difference between Online products and
online news was 24 percent for second chose of
showing the comments/threads question was no.

Analysis: Showing a number of positive comments,
the number of reader, or other rating criteria will
attract users to read and write comments and make
good arguments. In DDP2P, a number of
justifications, the number of witnesses, or other rating
criteria should be shown in the first page of the user
interface for the motion.
Figure 10: Showing a number of positive reviews
(comments/threads) and the number of stars, or
other rating criteria
5) Form for Attention-Grabbing-Words:
According to the result most of participants
would be attracted by any type of online comments
(Positive or Negative Words) as shown in Figure 11.
We asked: What types of words attract you the most
while reading comments for any online
product/news?
Key Finding:
- 22.1 percent of participants were attracted by
positive words of arguments.
negative words of arguments.
words).
positive words of arguments.
negative words of arguments.
words).
- Positive words: The Similarity between Online
chose of Attention-Grabbing-Words question
which was reading positive words of arguments.
- Negative words: The Similarity between Online
second chose of Attention-Grabbing-Words
question which was reading negative words of
arguments.
of Attention-Grabbing-Words question which
was reading both words (Positive or Negative
words) of arguments.
- Positive: The difference between online products
Attention-Grabbing-Words question which was
reading positive words of arguments.
- Negative: The difference between online
second chose of Attention-Grabbing-Words
question which was reading negative words of
arguments.
- Both: The difference between Online products
and online news was one percent for first chose
of Attention-Grabbing-Words question which
was reading both words (Positive or Negative
words) of arguments.
Analysis: Some people may get attacked by negative
words since other could get their attention just
positive words, but most of participants would be
attracted by any type of words depending on the
argument. In DDP2P applications, we could design a
form for attention-grabbing-words which would
attract users to become more involved in the debate.
Figure 11 Types of words that attract users
6) Form for emphasizing words:
Most of participants would expand words, when they
typed a comment in reviews in both studied domains
as shown in Figure 12.
We asked: When you type a comment in reviews
(comments/threads) for any online product/news, do
you expand some words for emphasis? For example
verrrrrrrrrrrry

Key Finding:
- 5.6 percent of participants were always likely to
expand some words for emphasis when they
typed a comment in online reviews.
- 47.2 percent of participants were sometimes
likely to expand some words for emphasis when
they typed a comment in online reviews.
- 47.2 percent of participants were never likely to
- Always: The similarity between online products
of emphasizing words question which was
always likely to expand some words for
emphasis when they typed a comment in online
reviews.
second chose of emphasizing words question
which was sometimes likely to expand some
words for emphasis when they typed a comment
in online reviews.
- Never: The Similarity between Online products
of emphasizing words question which was never
- Always: The difference between online products
always likely to expand some words for
emphasis when they typed a comment in online
reviews.
which was sometimes likely to expand some
words for emphasis when they typed a comment
in online reviews.
- Never: The difference between Online products
Analysis: The majority of participants would like to
extend the words when they typed a comment in
online reviews or comments. In DDP2P applications,
we can design a form for emphasizing words which
will attract users to become more involved in the
debate.
Figure 12 Expanding words for emphasis
7) Form for Translating Words of the User
Region:
Most of participants would use argot language
from their region as shown in Figure 13.
We asked: When you type a comment in a review
(comments/threads) for any online news, do you use
argot language from your region?
Key Finding:
use argot language from their region.
likely to use argot language from their region.

of translating words of the user region question
which was always likely to use argot language
from their region.
which was sometimes likely to use argot
language from their region.
- Never: The Similarity between Online products
always likely to use argot language from their
region.
which was sometimes likely to use argot
language from their region.
- Never: The difference between online products
Analysis: The majority of the participants would like
to use their region language in our studied domains
platforms. That meant they should enhance their
comments to be easy for understanding. In DDP2P
applications, we should design a form for translating
words of the user’s region to English, and give some
space to clarify these words (enhancement).
Figure 13 Using argot language
8) Form for Supporting Translation:
Most of participants were never likely to use
words from other languages for both studied domains
as shown in Figure 14.
We asked: When you type a comment in a review
(comments/threads) for any online news, do you use
some words from other languages?
Key Finding:
use words from other languages
likely to use words from other languages
likely to use words from other languages
of supporting translation question which was
always likely to use words from other languages.
second chose of supporting translation question
which was sometimes likely to use words from
other languages.
- Never: The Similarity between online products
never likely to use words from other languages.
always likely to use words from other languages.
second chose of supporting translation question
which was sometimes likely to use words from
other languages.
- Never: The difference between online products
never likely to use words from other languages.
Analysis: Some of participants would like to use
some words from other languages. The debate
platforms should support multiple languages to make
easy for understandable. In DDP2P applications, we
should design a form for supporting translation of

words of the users’ languages, and give the users
space to explain these words (explanation).
Figure 14 Supporting Translation for different
languages
9) Benefit of Study Threads:
Some of participants said that comment about
any online product/news are argumentative reviews
while others described online reviews as positive
reviews. A few of participants considered online
reviews as negative reviews as shown in Figure 15.
We asked: From your perspective, how would you
generally describe reviews (comments/threads) about
any online news?
Key Finding:
- 37.2 percent of participants described online
reviews as argumentative reviews
reviews as positive reviews 9.0 percent of
participants described online reviews as negative
reviews
reviews as argumentative comments
reviews as positive comments
reviews as negative comments
- Argumentative reviews/comments: The
similarity between online products and online
news was 92.9 percent for first chose of the
benefit of study threads question which was
argumentative reviews/comments.
- Positive reviews/comments: The Similarity
74.8 percent for second chose of the benefit of
study threads question which was positive
reviews/comments.
- Negative reviews/comments: The Similarity
percent for third chose of the benefit of study
threads question which was negative
reviews/comments.
- Argumentative reviews/comments: The
difference between online products and online
news was 7.1 percent for first chose of the
benefit of study threads question which was
argumentative reviews/comments.
- Positive reviews/comments: The difference
between online products and online news was
study threads question which was positive
reviews/comments.
- Negative reviews/comments: The difference
percent for first chose of the benefit of study
threads question which was negative
reviews/comments.
Analysis: The results of this question gave us the
benefit of studying online reviews (comments/
threads). There are a lot of users who trust online
reviews, especially if they are serious and positive
reviews.
Figure 15 Benefit of Study Reviews/Threads
10) Structured/Unstructured Platform for
Threads:
Most of participants were likely to prefer
platforms for reviews (comments/threads) of the
online product/news to be structured, which could be
a specific question that the user should answer or
comment on. Structured platforms helped extract a
conclusion of arguments around the product/news as
shown in Figure 16.

We asked: How do you prefer platforms for reviews
(comments/threads) associated with online to be
structured platforms or unstructured platforms?
Key Finding:
- 56.9 percent of participants preferred reviews
(comments/threads) for online products to be
structured platforms
(comments/threads) for online products to be
unstructured platforms
(comments/threads) for online news to be
structured platforms
(comments/threads) for online news to be
unstructured platforms
- Structured platforms: The similarity between
online products and online news was 97.8
percent for first chose of the benefit of study
threads question which was structured platforms.
- Unstructured platforms: The Similarity
study threads question which was unstructured
platforms.
- Structured platforms: The difference between
online products and online news was 2.2 percent
for first chose of the benefit of study threads
question which was Structured platforms
- Unstructured platforms: The difference
between online products and online news was
study threads question which was unstructured
platforms.
Analysis: The majority of participants were likely to
prefer reviews (comments/threads) for online
product/news to be structured platforms. In DDP2P
applications, we should have those two types of
platforms. Unstructured platforms could be used for
peers to join or create any organizations/motions, and
structured platforms could be used for voting to post
only one justification for any given motion, and
whether they support it or are against it.
Figure 16 Structured/Unstructured Platform for
Reviews/Threads
V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We are sincerely grateful to Dr. Muzaffar
Shaikh, Dr. John Lavelle, Dr. Khalid Abuhasel for
their support and sharing their truthful and
illuminating view on a number of issues related to the
survey.
VI. CONCLUSION
Platforms for electronic debates can be
associated with various application domains, such as
product evaluation, commented news, science,
education, religion, or politics. These platforms are
often developed as modules that can be integrated in
any application. When developing electronic
platforms for debates, one has to know what
properties and expectations have to be met. The
question that we address is whether the expectations
differ between distinct application domains. In this
research we investigate a mechanism based on
surveys to detect differences between application
domains of electronic debates associated with
product evaluation systems as well as with
commented news. Similar questions are asked to
large numbers of users of debate platforms for the
two types of applications. The questions are designed
to capture general and specific expectations and
beliefs that users have concerning the threading,
structure and content of the debates on the
corresponding platforms. We find out that the
expectations are significantly different as to the type
and details expected by users. Users of product
evaluation debates expect terse and focused
comments that highlight problems of the product.
They have more limited time to read these comments,
as they want to go on finding a product they need.
With commented news, users are more inclined to
read detailed sides of the story. It may be explained
by the fact that users read news when they have more
time available, and they can dedicate to the
understanding the involved issues. As such, debate
platforms for product evaluation have to encourage

short comments, with limited number of words.
Platforms for commented news can provide ample
space for related issues and extended discourses.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Alqahtani and M. Silaghi, “Classification
of debate threading models for representing
decentralized debates,” in Proceedings on
the International Conference on Artificial
Intelligence (ICAI). The Steering
Committee of The World Congress in
Computer Science, Computer Engineering
and Applied Computing (WorldComp),
2015, p. 259.
[2] “User interfaces for representing knowledge
stemming from debates: Evaluating the
impact of threading models (reviews) on
online products,” in Proceedings on the
International Conference on Artificial
Intelligence (ICAI). The Steering
Committee of The World Congress in
Computer Science, Computer Engineering
and Applied Computing (WorldComp),
2015, p. 741.
[3] T. Quandt, “News on the world wide web? a
comparative content analysis of online news
in europe and the united states,” Journalism
Studies, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 717–738, 2008.
[4] R. Sparks, M. L. Young, and S. Darnell,
“Convergence, corporate restructuring, and
canadian online news, 2000-2003,”
Canadian Journal of Communication, vol.
31, no. 2, 2006.
[5] A. Bruns, “Stuff that matters: Slashdot and
the emergence of open news,” 2003.
[6] A. Kosic and A. Triandafyllidou,
“Representations of the european union and
the nation (-state) in italian party discourse:
A critical analysis of electoral platforms and
parliamentary debates,” Journal of Language
and Politics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 53–80, 2004.
[7] L. Cotula, Land grab or development
opportunity?: agricultural investment and
international land deals in Africa. Iied, 2009.
[8] H. M. Robert, Pocket Manual of Rules of
Order for Deliberative Assemblies. SC
Griggs, 1896.
[9] “https://yourview.org.au/.”
[10] K. Kattamuri, M. Silaghi, C. Kaner, R.
Stansifer, and M. Zanker, “Supporting
debates over citizen initiatives,” in
Proceedings of the 2005 national conference
on Digital government research. Digital
Government Society of North America,
2005, pp. 279–280.
[11] M. C. Silaghi, K. Alhamed, O. Dhannoon, S.
Qin, R. Vishen, R. Knowles, I. Hussien, Y.
Yang, T. Matsui, M. Yokoo et al.,
“Directdemocracyp2pâ˘ AˇTdecentralized
deliberative petition drivesâ˘ AˇT,” in Peer-
to-Peer Computing (P2P), 2013 IEEE
Thirteenth International Conference on.
IEEE, 2013, pp. 1–2.
[12] A.Bondarenko,P.M.Dung,R.A.Kowalski,
andF.Toni,“Anabstract, argumentation-
theoretic approach to default reasoning,”
Artificial intelligence, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 63–
101, 1997.
[13] A. Aldridge and K. Levine, Surveying the
social world. Open University Press, 2001.

Expectations for Electronic Debate Platforms as a Function of Application Domain

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to Expectations for Electronic Debate Platforms as a Function of Application Domain (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Expectations for Electronic Debate Platforms as a Function of Application Domain