  Open-textured terms in written rules are typically settled through
interpretive argumentation. Ongoing work has attempted to catalogue the schemes
used in such interpretive argumentation. But how can the use of these schemes
affect the way in which people actually use and reason over the proper
interpretations of open-textured terms? Using the interpretive
argument-eliciting game Aporia as our framework, we carried out an empirical
study to answer this question. Differing from previous work, we did not allow
participants to argue for interpretations arbitrarily, but to only use
arguments that fit with a given set of interpretive argument templates.
Finally, we analyze the results captured by this new dataset, specifically
focusing on practical implications for the development of
interpretation-capable artificial reasoners.
