LPAttack: A Feasible Annotation Scheme for Capturing Logic Pattern of Attacks in Arguments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.01512v1
• Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 14:15:25 GMT
• Title: LPAttack: A Feasible Annotation Scheme for Capturing Logic Pattern of Attacks in Arguments
• Authors: Farjana Sultana Mim, Naoya Inoue, Shoichi Naito, Keshav Singh and Kentaro Inui
• Abstract summary: In argumentative discourse, persuasion is often achieved by refuting or attacking others arguments. No existing studies capture complex rhetorical moves in attacks or the presuppositions or value judgements in them. We introduce LPAttack, a novel annotation scheme that captures the common modes and complex rhetorical moves in attacks along with the implicit presuppositions and value judgements in them.
• Score: 33.445994192714956
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In argumentative discourse, persuasion is often achieved by refuting or attacking others arguments. Attacking is not always straightforward and often comprise complex rhetorical moves such that arguers might agree with a logic of an argument while attacking another logic. Moreover, arguer might neither deny nor agree with any logics of an argument, instead ignore them and attack the main stance of the argument by providing new logics and presupposing that the new logics have more value or importance than the logics present in the attacked argument. However, no existing studies in the computational argumentation capture such complex rhetorical moves in attacks or the presuppositions or value judgements in them. In order to address this gap, we introduce LPAttack, a novel annotation scheme that captures the common modes and complex rhetorical moves in attacks along with the implicit presuppositions and value judgements in them. Our annotation study shows moderate inter-annotator agreement, indicating that human annotation for the proposed scheme is feasible. We publicly release our annotated corpus and the annotation guidelines.

Related papers

• Discussion Graph Semantics of First-Order Logic with Equality for Reasoning about Discussion and Argumentation [0.9790236766474198]
  We formulate discussion graph semantics of first-order logic with equality for reasoning about discussion and argumentation. We achieve the generality through a top-down formulation of the semantics of first-order logic (with equality) formulas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T00:32:00Z)
• CASA: Causality-driven Argument Sufficiency Assessment [79.13496878681309]
  We propose CASA, a zero-shot causality-driven argument sufficiency assessment framework. PS measures how likely introducing the premise event would lead to the conclusion when both the premise and conclusion events are absent. Experiments on two logical fallacy detection datasets demonstrate that CASA accurately identifies insufficient arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-10T16:21:18Z)
• Contrastive Chain-of-Thought Prompting [74.10511560147293]
  We propose contrastive chain of thought to enhance language model reasoning. Compared to the conventional chain of thought, our approach provides both valid and invalid reasoning demonstrations. Our experiments on reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that contrastive chain of thought can serve as a general enhancement of chain-of-thought prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T18:54:01Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way. Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Theme Aspect Argumentation Model for Handling Fallacies [2.3230307339947274]
  We present a novel approach to characterising fallacies through formal constraints. By identifying fallacies with formal constraints, it becomes possible to tell whether a fallacy lurks in the modelled rhetoric with a formal rigour.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-30T14:34:09Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• Towards Defending against Adversarial Examples via Attack-Invariant Features [147.85346057241605]
  Deep neural networks (DNNs) are vulnerable to adversarial noise. adversarial robustness can be improved by exploiting adversarial examples. Models trained on seen types of adversarial examples generally cannot generalize well to unseen types of adversarial examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-09T12:49:54Z)
• Argument Undermining: Counter-Argument Generation by Attacking Weak Premises [31.463885580010192]
  We explore argument undermining, that is, countering an argument by attacking one of its premises. We propose a pipeline approach that first assesses the premises' strength and then generates a counter-argument targeting the weak ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-25T08:39:14Z)
• Detecting Attackable Sentences in Arguments [10.20577647332734]
  We analyze driving reasons for attacks in argumentation and identify relevant characteristics of sentences. We show that machine learning models can automatically detect attackable sentences in arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T12:13:00Z)
• Extracting Implicitly Asserted Propositions in Argumentation [8.20413690846954]
  We study methods for extracting propositions implicitly asserted in questions, reported speech, and imperatives in argumentation. Our study may inform future research on argument mining and the semantics of these rhetorical devices in argumentation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T12:03:47Z)

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.