The Unfolding Structure of Arguments in Online Debates: The case of a
No-Deal Brexit
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.16387v1
- Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 12:29:43 GMT
- Title: The Unfolding Structure of Arguments in Online Debates: The case of a
No-Deal Brexit
- Authors: Carlo Santagiustina and Massimo Warglien
- Abstract summary: We propose a five-step methodology to extract, categorize and explore the latent argumentation structures of online debates.
Using Twitter data about a "no-deal" Brexit, we focus on the expected effects in case of materialisation of this event.
Results show that the proposed methodology can be employed to perform a statistical rhetorics analysis of debates.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: In the last decade, political debates have progressively shifted to social
media. Rhetorical devices employed by online actors and factions that operate
in these debating arenas can be captured and analysed to conduct a statistical
reading of societal controversies and their argumentation dynamics. In this
paper, we propose a five-step methodology, to extract, categorize and explore
the latent argumentation structures of online debates. Using Twitter data about
a "no-deal" Brexit, we focus on the expected effects in case of materialisation
of this event. First, we extract cause-effect claims contained in tweets using
RegEx that exploit verbs related to Creation, Destruction and Causation.
Second, we categorise extracted "no-deal" effects using a Structural Topic
Model estimated on unigrams and bigrams. Third, we select controversial effect
topics and explore within-topic argumentation differences between self-declared
partisan user factions. We hence type topics using estimated covariate effects
on topic propensities, then, using the topics correlation network, we study the
topological structure of the debate to identify coherent topical
constellations. Finally, we analyse the debate time dynamics and infer
lead/follow relations among factions. Results show that the proposed
methodology can be employed to perform a statistical rhetorics analysis of
debates, and map the architecture of controversies across time. In particular,
the "no-deal" Brexit debate is shown to have an assortative argumentation
structure heavily characterized by factional constellations of arguments, as
well as by polarized narrative frames invoked through verbs related to Creation
and Destruction. Our findings highlight the benefits of implementing a systemic
approach to the analysis of debates, which allows the unveiling of topical and
factional dependencies between arguments employed in online debates.
Related papers
- Debatrix: Multi-dimensional Debate Judge with Iterative Chronological Analysis Based on LLM [51.43102092480804]
Debatrix is an automated debate judge based on Large Language Models (LLMs)
To align with real-world debate scenarios, we introduced the PanelBench benchmark, comparing our system's performance to actual debate outcomes.
The findings indicate a notable enhancement over directly using LLMs for debate evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-12T18:19:47Z) - Explaining Image Classification with Visual Debates [26.76139301708958]
We propose a novel debate framework for understanding and explaining a continuous image classifier's reasoning for making a particular prediction.
Our framework encourages players to put forward diverse arguments during the debates, picking up the reasoning trails missed by their opponents.
We demonstrate and evaluate (a practical realization) our Visual Debates on the geometric SHAPE and MNIST datasets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-17T12:35:52Z) - Persua: A Visual Interactive System to Enhance the Persuasiveness of
Arguments in Online Discussion [52.49981085431061]
Enhancing people's ability to write persuasive arguments could contribute to the effectiveness and civility in online communication.
We derived four design goals for a tool that helps users improve the persuasiveness of arguments in online discussions.
Persua is an interactive visual system that provides example-based guidance on persuasive strategies to enhance the persuasiveness of arguments.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-16T08:07:53Z) - DEBACER: a method for slicing moderated debates [55.705662163385966]
Partitioning debates into blocks with the same subject is essential for understanding.
We propose a new algorithm, DEBACER, which partitions moderated debates.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-12-10T10:39:07Z) - Exploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification [48.909640432326654]
This paper empirically shows that the discourse relations between two arguments along the context path are essential factors for identifying the persuasive power of an argument.
We propose DisCOC to inject and fuse the sentence-level structural information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-02T06:49:19Z) - Explaining Outcomes of Multi-Party Dialogues using Causal Learning [6.212955085775758]
Multi-party dialogues are common in enterprise social media on technical as well as non-technical topics.
It is important to analyze why a dialogue ends with a particular sentiment from the point of view of conflict analysis.
We propose an explainable time series mining algorithm for such analysis.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-05-03T15:18:53Z) - Who Responded to Whom: The Joint Effects of Latent Topics and Discourse
in Conversation Structure [53.77234444565652]
We identify the responding relations in the conversation discourse, which link response utterances to their initiations.
We propose a model to learn latent topics and discourse in word distributions, and predict pairwise initiation-response links.
Experimental results on both English and Chinese conversations show that our model significantly outperforms the previous state of the arts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-04-17T17:46:00Z) - Exploring the Role of Argument Structure in Online Debate Persuasion [39.74040217761505]
We investigate the role of discourse structure of the arguments from online debates in their persuasiveness.
We find that argument structure features play an essential role in achieving the better predictive performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-07T17:34:50Z) - AMPERSAND: Argument Mining for PERSuAsive oNline Discussions [41.06165177604387]
We propose a computational model for argument mining in online persuasive discussion forums.
Our approach relies on identifying relations between components of arguments in a discussion thread.
Our models obtain significant improvements compared to recent state-of-the-art approaches.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-04-30T10:33:40Z) - What Changed Your Mind: The Roles of Dynamic Topics and Discourse in
Argumentation Process [78.4766663287415]
This paper presents a study that automatically analyzes the key factors in argument persuasiveness.
We propose a novel neural model that is able to track the changes of latent topics and discourse in argumentative conversations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-02-10T04:27:48Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.