Americans spend about a third of their time online, with many participating in online conversations on social and political issues. We hypothesize that social media arguments on such issues may be more engaging and persuasive than traditional media summaries, and that particular types of people may be more or less convinced by particular styles of argument, e.g. emotional arguments may resonate with some personalities while factual arguments resonate with others. We report a set of experiments testing at large scale how audience variables interact with argument style to affect the persuasiveness of an argument, an under-researched topic within natural language processing. We show that belief change is affected by personality factors, with conscientious, open and agreeable people being more convinced by emotional arguments.
Previous work on belief change has primarily focused on single, experimentally crafted, persuasive messages, rather than exploring whether user-generated dialogic arguments can be repurposed to persuade. Recently however several papers have begun to investigate two challenges in argument mining: (1) understanding the structure of an argument and extracting argument components @cite_16 @cite_57 @cite_21 @cite_16 @cite_45 ; and (2) understanding what predicts the persuasiveness of web-sourced argumentative content @cite_63 @cite_25 @cite_3 @cite_11 @cite_30 .
@cite_30 @cite_21 @cite_3 @cite_57 @cite_45 @cite_63 @cite_16 @cite_25 @cite_11
2562522356 2518510348 2251478708 2236647290 2251661596 2145327091 2250287365 1973052685 2250653239
This article tackles a new challenging task in computational argumentation. Given a pair of two arguments to a certain controversial topic, we aim to directly assess qualitative properties of the arguments in order to explain why one argument is more convincing than the other one. We approach this task in a fully empirical manner by annotating 26k explanations written in natural language. These explanations describe convincingness of arguments in the given argument pair, such as their strengths or flaws. We create a new crowd-sourced corpus containing 9,111 argument pairs, multi-labeled with 17 classes, which was cleaned and curated by employing several strict quality measures. We propose two tasks on this data set, namely (1) predicting the full label distribution and (2) classifying types of flaws in less convincing arguments. Our experiments with feature-rich SVM learners and Bidirectional LSTM neural networks with convolution and attention mechanism reveal that such a novel fine-grained analysis of Web argument convincingness is a very challenging task. We release the new UKPConvArg2 corpus and software under permissive licenses to the research community. 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. Argument mining studies in natural language text often use lexical (e.g. n-grams) and syntactic (e.g. grammatical production rules) features with all possible values. In prior work on a corpus of academic essays, we demonstrated that such large and sparse feature spaces can cause difficulty for feature selection and proposed a method to design a more compact feature space. The proposed feature design is based on post-processing a topic model to extract argument and domain words. In this paper we investigate the generality of this approach, by applying our methodology to a new corpus of persuasive essays. Our experiments show that replacing n-grams and syntactic rules with features and constraints using extracted argument and domain words significantly improves argument mining performance for persuasive essays. 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 introduce a new approach to argumentation mining that we applied to a parallel German English corpus of short texts annotated with argumentation structure. We focus on structure prediction, which we break into a number of subtasks: relation identification, central claim identification, role classification, and function classification. Our new model jointly predicts different aspects of the structure by combining the different subtask predictions in the edge weights of an evidence graph; we then apply a standard MST decoding algorithm. This model not only outperforms two reasonable baselines and two datadriven models of global argument structure for the difficult subtask of relation identification, but also improves the results for central claim identification and function classification and it compares favorably to a complex mstparser pipeline. A growing body of work has highlighted the challenges of identifying the stance a speaker holds towards a particular topic, a task that involves identifying a holistic subjective disposition. We examine stance classification on a corpus of 4873 posts across 14 topics on ConvinceMe.net, ranging from the playful to the ideological. We show that ideological debates feature a greater share of rebuttal posts, and that rebuttal posts are significantly harder to classify for stance, for both humans and trained classifiers. We also demonstrate that the number of subjective expressions varies across debates, a fact correlated with the performance of systems sensitive to sentiment-bearing terms. We present results for identifing rebuttals with 63 accuracy, and for identifying stance on a per topic basis that range from 54 to 69 , as compared to unigram baselines that vary between 49 and 60 . Our results suggest that methods that take into account the dialogic context of such posts might be fruitful. The ability to analyze the adequacy of supporting information is necessary for determining the strength of an argument.1 This is especially the case for online user comments, which often consist of arguments lacking proper substantiation and reasoning. Thus, we develop a framework for automatically classifying each proposition as UNVERIFIABLE, VERIFIABLE NONEXPERIENTIAL, or VERIFIABLE EXPERIENTIAL2, where the appropriate type of support is reason, evidence, and optional evidence, respectively3. Once the existing support for propositions are identified, this classification can provide an estimate of how adequately the arguments have been supported. We build a goldstandard dataset of 9,476 sentences and clauses from 1,047 comments submitted to an eRulemaking platform and find that Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifiers trained with n-grams and additional features capturing the verifiability and experientiality exhibit statistically significant improvement over the unigram baseline, achieving a macro-averaged F1 of 68.99 . We show how belief revision can be treated systematically in the format of dynamicepistemic logic, when operators of conditional belief are added. The core engine consists of definable update rules for changing plausibility relations between worlds, which have been proposed independently in the dynamic-epistemic literature on preference change. Our analysis yields two new types of modal result. First, we obtain complete logics for concrete mechanisms of belief revision, based on compositional reduction axioms. Next, we show how various abstract postulates for belief revision can be analyzed by standard modal frame correspondences for model-changing operations. 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.