The goal of argumentation mining, an evolving research field in computational linguistics, is to design methods capable of analyzing people's argumentation. In this article, we go beyond the state of the art in several ways. i We deal with actual Web data and take up the challenges given by the variety of registers, multiple domains, and unrestricted noisy user-generated Web discourse. ii We bridge the gap between normative argumentation theories and argumentation phenomena encountered in actual data by adapting an argumentation model tested in an extensive annotation study. iii We create a new gold standard corpus 90k tokens in 340 documents and experiment with several machine learning methods to identify argument components. We offer the data, source codes, and annotation guidelines to the community under free licenses. Our findings show that argumentation mining in user-generated Web discourse is a feasible but challenging task.
We structure the related work into three sub-categories, namely , , and , as these areas are closest to this article's focus. For a recent overview of general discourse analysis see @cite_69 . Apart from these, research on computer-supported argumentation has been also very active; see, e.g., @cite_64 for a survey of various models and argumentation formalisms from the educational perspective or @cite_76 which examines argumentation in the Semantic Web.
@cite_69 @cite_64 @cite_76
2250653239 2133391912 2250309026 2518510348
Analyzing arguments in user-generated Web discourse has recently gained attention in argumentation mining, an evolving field of NLP. Current approaches, which employ fully-supervised machine learning, are usually domain dependent and suffer from the lack of large and diverse annotated corpora. However, annotating arguments in discourse is costly, error-prone, and highly context-dependent. We asked whether leveraging unlabeled data in a semi-supervised manner can boost the performance of argument component identification and to which extent is the approach independent of domain and register. We propose novel features that exploit clustering of unlabeled data from debate portals based on a word embeddings representation. Using these features, we significantly outperform several baselines in the cross-validation, cross-domain, and cross-register evaluation scenarios. Argumentation is an important skill to learn. It is valuable not only in many professional contexts, such as the law, science, politics, and business, but also in everyday life. However, not many people are good arguers. In response to this, researchers and practitioners over the past 15–20 years have developed software tools both to support and teach argumentation. Some of these tools are used in individual fashion, to present students with the “rules” of argumentation in a particular domain and give them an opportunity to practice, while other tools are used in collaborative fashion, to facilitate communication and argumentation between multiple, and perhaps distant, participants. In this paper, we review the extensive literature on argumentation systems, both individual and collaborative, and both supportive and educational, with an eye toward particular aspects of the past work. More specifically, we review the types of argument representations that have been used, the various types of interaction design and ontologies that have been employed, and the system architecture issues that have been addressed. In addition, we discuss intelligent and automated features that have been imbued in past systems, such as automatically analyzing the quality of arguments and providing intelligent feedback to support and or tutor argumentation. We also discuss a variety of empirical studies that have been done with argumentation systems, including, among other aspects, studies that have evaluated the effect of argument diagrams (e.g., textual versus graphical), different representations, and adaptive feedback on learning argumentation. Finally, we conclude by summarizing the “lessons learned” from this large and impressive body of work, particularly focusing on lessons for the CSCL research community and its ongoing efforts to develop computer-mediated collaborative argumentation systems. In this paper, we present a novel approach for identifying argumentative discourse structures in persuasive essays. The structure of argumentation consists of several components (i.e. claims and premises) that are connected with argumentative relations. We consider this task in two consecutive steps. First, we identify the components of arguments using multiclass classification. Second, we classify a pair of argument components as either support or non-support for identifying the structure of argumentative discourse. For both tasks, we evaluate several classifiers and propose novel feature sets including structural, lexical, syntactic and contextual features. In our experiments, we obtain a macro F1-score of 0.726 for identifying argument components and 0.722 for argumentative relations. We propose a new task in the field of computational argumentation in which we investigate qualitative properties of Web arguments, namely their convincingness. We cast the problem as relation classification, where a pair of arguments having the same stance to the same prompt is judged. We annotate a large datasets of 16k pairs of arguments over 32 topics and investigate whether the relation “A is more convincing than B” exhibits properties of total ordering; these findings are used as global constraints for cleaning the crowdsourced data. We propose two tasks: (1) predicting which argument from an argument pair is more convincing and (2) ranking all arguments to the topic based on their convincingness. We experiment with feature-rich SVM and bidirectional LSTM and obtain 0.76-0.78 accuracy and 0.35-0.40 Spearman’s correlation in a cross-topic evaluation. We release the newly created corpus UKPConvArg1 and the experimental software under open licenses.