license:cc-by-nc-sa-4.0 region:us
@inproceedings{peldszus2015annotated,
  title={An annotated corpus of argumentative microtexts},
  author={Peldszus, Andreas and Stede, Manfred},
  booktitle={Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon},
  volume={2},
  pages={801--815},
  year={2015}
}
---
license: cc-by-nc-sa-4.0
---
# An annotated corpus of argumentative microtexts

The arg-microtexts corpus features 112 short argumentative texts. All texts
were originally written in German and have been professionally translated to
English.

The texts with ids b001-b064 and k001-k031 have been collected in a controlled
text generation experiment from 23 subjects discussing various controversial
issues from [a fixed list](topics_triggers.md).

The texts with ids d01-d23 have been written by Andreas Peldszus and were
used mainly in teaching and testing students argumentative analysis.

All texts are annotated with argumentation structures, following the scheme
proposed in Peldszus & Stede (2013). For inter-annotator-agreement scores see
Peldszus (2014). The (German) annotation guidelines are published in Peldszus, Warzecha, Stede (2016).


## DATA FORMAT (ARGUMENTATION GRAPH)

This specifies the argumentation graphs following the
annotation scheme described in

   Andreas Peldszus and Manfred Stede. From argument diagrams to argumentation
   mining in texts: a survey. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics 
   and Natural Intelligence (IJCINI), 7(1):1–31, 2013.

 
An argumentation graph is a directed graph spanning over text segments. The
format distinguishes three different sorts of nodes: EDUs, ADUs & EDU-joints.

- EDU: elementary discourse units
  The text is segmented into elementary discourse units, typically at a
  clause/sentence level. This segmentation can be the result of manually
  annotation or of automatic discourse segmenters.
   
- ADU: argumentative discourse units
  Not every EDU is relevant in an argumentation. Also, the same claim might
  be stated multiple times in longer texts. An argumentative discourse unit
  represents a claim that stands for itself and is argumentatively relevant.
  It is thus grounded in one or more EDUs. EDU and ADUs are connected by 
  segmentation edges. ADUs are associated with a dialectic role: They are
  either proponent or opponent nodes.

- JOINT: a joint of two or more adjacent elementary discourse units
  When two adjacent EDUs are argumentatively relevant only when taken
  together, these EDUs are first connected with one joint EDU node by
  segmentation edges and then this joint node is connected to a corresponding
  ADU.

### edge type
The edges representing arguments are those that connect ADUs. The scheme
distinguishes between supporting and attacking relations. Supporting
relations are normal support and support by example. Attacking relations are
rebutting attacks (directed against another node, challenging the accept-
ability of the corresponding claim) and undercutting attacks (directed
against another relation, challenging the argumentative inference from the
source to the target of the relation). Finally, additional premises of 
relations with more than one premise are represented by additional source
relations.

Values:
- seg: segmentation edges (EDU->ADU, EDU->JOINT, JOINT->ADU)
- sup: support (ADU->ADU)
- exa: support by example (ADU->ADU)
- add: additional source, for combined/convergent arguments with multiple premises (ADU->ADU)
- reb: rebutting attack (ADU->ADU)
- und: undercutting attack (ADU->Edge)

### adu type
The argumentation can be thought of as a dialectical exchange between the
role of the proponent (who is presenting and defending the central claim)
and the role of the opponent (who is critically challenging the proponents
claims). Each ADU is thus associated with one of these dialectic roles.

Values:
- pro: proponent
- opp: opponent

### stance type
Annotated texts typically discuss a controversial topic, i.e. an issue posed
as a yes/no question. Example: "Should we make use of capital punishment?"
The stance type specifies, which stance the author of this text takes
towards this issue.
 
Values:
- pro: yes, in favour of the proposed issue
- con: no, against the proposed issue
- unclear: the position of the author is unclear
- UNDEFINED