  In dialogical argumentation it is often assumed that the involved parties
always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other,
realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability
states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views when new and correct
information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is
sufficient to represent their opinions. Although it is natural to make these
assumptions as a starting point for further research, removing them or even
acknowledging that such removal should happen is more challenging for some of
these concepts than for others. Probabilistic argumentation is one of the
approaches that can be harnessed for more accurate user modelling. The
epistemic approach allows us to represent how much a given argument is believed
by a given person, offering us the possibility to express more than just three
agreement states. It is equipped with a wide range of postulates, including
those that do not make any restrictions concerning how initial arguments should
be viewed, thus potentially being more adequate for handling beliefs of the
people that have not fully disclosed their opinions in comparison to Dung's
semantics. The constellation approach can be used to represent the views of
different people concerning the structure of the framework we are dealing with,
including cases in which not all relations are acknowledged or when they are
seen differently than intended. Finally, bipolar argumentation frameworks can
be used to express both positive and negative relations between arguments. In
this paper we describe the results of an experiment in which participants
judged dialogues in terms of agreement and structure. We compare our findings
with the aforementioned assumptions as well as with the constellation and
epistemic approaches to probabilistic argumentation and bipolar argumentation.
