"Dummy Grandpa, do you know anything?": Identifying and Characterizing Ad hominem Fallacy Usage in the Wild

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.02062v1
• Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2022 17:16:44 GMT
• Title: "Dummy Grandpa, do you know anything?": Identifying and Characterizing Ad hominem Fallacy Usage in the Wild
• Authors: Utkarsh Patel, Animesh Mukherjee, Mainack Mondal
• Abstract summary: Ad hominem arguments are one of the most effective forms of such fallacies. Ad hominem argument usage increased significantly since the 2016 US Presidential election.
• Score: 7.022640250985622
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Today, participating in discussions on online forums is extremely commonplace and these discussions have started rendering a strong influence on the overall opinion of online users. Naturally, twisting the flow of the argument can have a strong impact on the minds of naive users, which in the long run might have socio-political ramifications, for example, winning an election or spreading targeted misinformation. Thus, these platforms are potentially highly vulnerable to malicious players who might act individually or as a cohort to breed fallacious arguments with a motive to sway public opinion. Ad hominem arguments are one of the most effective forms of such fallacies. Although a simple fallacy, it is effective enough to sway public debates in offline world and can be used as a precursor to shutting down the voice of opposition by slander. In this work, we take a first step in shedding light on the usage of ad hominem fallacies in the wild. First, we build a powerful ad hominem detector with high accuracy (F1 more than 83%, showing a significant improvement over prior work), even for datasets for which annotated instances constitute a very small fraction. We then used our detector on 265k arguments collected from the online debate forum - CreateDebate. Our crowdsourced surveys validate our in-the-wild predictions on CreateDebate data (94% match with manual annotation). Our analysis revealed that a surprising 31.23% of CreateDebate content contains ad hominem fallacy, and a cohort of highly active users post significantly more ad hominem to suppress opposing views. Then, our temporal analysis revealed that ad hominem argument usage increased significantly since the 2016 US Presidential election, not only for topics like Politics, but also for Science and Law. We conclude by discussing important implications of our work to detect and defend against ad hominem fallacies.

Related papers

• Grounding Fallacies Misrepresenting Scientific Publications in Evidence [84.32990746227385]
  We introduce MissciPlus, an extension of the fallacy detection dataset Missci. MissciPlus builds on Missci by grounding the applied fallacies in real-world passages from misrepresented studies. MissciPlus is the first logical fallacy dataset which pairs the real-world misrepresented evidence with incorrect claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T03:16:26Z)
• Missci: Reconstructing Fallacies in Misrepresented Science [84.32990746227385]
  Health-related misinformation on social networks can lead to poor decision-making and real-world dangers. Missci is a novel argumentation theoretical model for fallacious reasoning. We present Missci as a dataset to test the critical reasoning abilities of large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T12:11:10Z)
• How susceptible are LLMs to Logical Fallacies? [5.723715910568911]
  We present LOGICOM, a diagnostic benchmark to assess the robustness of Large Language Models against logical fallacies. We use this benchmark to evaluate the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 using a dataset containing controversial topics. Our findings indicate that both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adjust their opinion through reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-18T23:07:29Z)
• 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)
• The Unfolding Structure of Arguments in Online Debates: The case of a No-Deal Brexit [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-09T12:29:43Z)
• "Nice Try, Kiddo": Investigating Ad Hominems in Dialogue Responses [87.89632038677912]
  Ad hominem attacks are those that target some feature of a person's character instead of the position the person is maintaining. We propose categories of ad hominems, compose an annotated dataset, and build a system to analyze human and dialogue responses to English Twitter posts. Our results indicate that 1) responses from both humans and DialoGPT contain more ad hominems for discussions around marginalized communities, 2) different quantities of ad hominems in the training data can influence the likelihood of generating ad hominems, and 3) we can constrained decoding techniques to reduce ad hominems
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T07:37:49Z)
• Influence via Ethos: On the Persuasive Power of Reputation in Deliberation Online [10.652828373995513]
  Deliberation among individuals online plays a key role in shaping the opinions that drive votes, purchases, donations and other critical offline behavior. Our research examines the persuasive power of $textitethos$ -- an individual's "reputation" We find that an individual's reputation significantly impacts their persuasion rate above and beyond the validity, strength and presentation of their arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-01T04:25:40Z)
• Adversarial Fooling Beyond "Flipping the Label" [54.23547006072598]
  CNNs show near human or better than human performance in many critical tasks. These attacks are potentially dangerous in real-life deployments. We present a comprehensive analysis of several important adversarial attacks over a set of distinct CNN architectures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-27T13:21:03Z)
• 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.