{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01397712833545108, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.108527131782946, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Profiles of Dialogue: A Method of Argument Fault Diagnosis and Repair

This paper builds the profiles of dialogue tool into a fault diagnosis method that can be applied to problematic examples of argumentation such as those involving informal fallacies. The profiles method works by comparing a descriptive graph with a normative graph. The descriptive graph represents how a dialogue sequence actually went in the example chosen for analysis. The normative graph represents an analysis of how the sequence should ideally proceed, according to the protocols (rules) for this type of dialogue. The descriptive graph is mapped into the normative graph. Therefore, a comparison can be made to diagnose the fault in the sequence displayed in the descriptive graph and subsequently repair it.