  In online debates individual arguments support or attack each other, leading
to some subset of arguments being considered more relevant than others.
However, in large discussions readers are often forced to sample a subset of
the arguments being put forth. Since such sampling is rarely done in a
principled manner, users may not read all the relevant arguments to get a full
picture of the debate. This paper is interested in answering the question of
how users should sample online conversations to selectively favour the
currently justified or accepted positions in the debate. We apply techniques
from argumentation theory and complex networks to build a model that predicts
the probabilities of the normatively justified arguments given their location
in online discussions. Our model shows that the proportion of replies that are
supportive, the number of replies that comments receive, and the locations of
un-replied comments all determine the probability that a comment is a justified
argument. We show that when the degree distribution of the number of replies is
homogeneous along the discussion, for acrimonious discussions, the distribution
of justified arguments depends on the parity of the graph level. In supportive
discussions the probability of having justified comments increases as one moves
away from the root. For discussion trees that have a non-homogeneous in-degree
distribution, for supportive discussions we observe the same behaviour as
before, while for acrimonious discussions we cannot observe the same
parity-based distribution. This is verified with data obtained from the online
debating platform Kialo. By predicting the locations of the justified arguments
in reply trees, we can suggest which arguments readers should sample to grasp
the currently accepted opinions in such discussions. Our models have important
implications for the design of future online debating platforms.
