Exploring Jiu-Jitsu Argumentation for Writing Peer Review Rebuttals
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.03998v1
- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2023 13:54:01 GMT
- Title: Exploring Jiu-Jitsu Argumentation for Writing Peer Review Rebuttals
- Authors: Sukannya Purkayastha, Anne Lauscher, Iryna Gurevych
- Abstract summary: In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots.
Recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning, one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu'soft' combat system.
We are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation.
- Score: 70.22179850619519
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called
attitude roots, i.e., underlying beliefs and world views, and their
corresponding attitude themes. Given the strength of these latent drivers of
arguments, recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly
countering surface-level reasoning (e.g., falsifying given premises), one
should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu 'soft' combat
system (Hornsey and Fielding, 2017): first, identify an arguer's attitude roots
and themes, and then choose a prototypical rebuttal that is aligned with those
drivers instead of invalidating those. In this work, we are the first to
explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of
attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation. To this end, we enrich an
existing dataset for discourse structure in peer reviews with attitude roots,
attitude themes, and canonical rebuttals. To facilitate this process, we recast
established annotation concepts from the domain of peer reviews (e.g., aspects
a review sentence is relating to) and train domain-specific models. We then
propose strong rebuttal generation strategies, which we benchmark on our novel
dataset for the task of end-to-end attitude and theme-guided rebuttal
generation and two subtasks.
Related papers
- Overview of PerpectiveArg2024: The First Shared Task on Perspective Argument Retrieval [56.66761232081188]
We present a novel dataset covering demographic and socio-cultural (socio) variables, such as age, gender, and political attitude, representing minority and majority groups in society.
We find substantial challenges in incorporating perspectivism, especially when aiming for personalization based solely on the text of arguments without explicitly providing socio profiles.
While we bootstrap perspective argument retrieval, further research is essential to optimize retrieval systems to facilitate personalization and reduce polarization.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-29T03:14:57Z) - Argue with Me Tersely: Towards Sentence-Level Counter-Argument
Generation [62.069374456021016]
We present the ArgTersely benchmark for sentence-level counter-argument generation.
We also propose Arg-LlaMA for generating high-quality counter-argument.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-21T06:51:34Z) - AMERICANO: Argument Generation with Discourse-driven Decomposition and Agent Interaction [25.38899822861742]
We propose Americano, a novel framework with agent interaction for argument generation.
Our approach decomposes the generation process into sequential actions grounded on argumentation theory.
Our method outperforms both end-to-end and chain-of-thought prompting methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-31T10:47:33Z) - How to disagree well: Investigating the dispute tactics used on
Wikipedia [17.354674873244335]
We propose a framework of dispute tactics that unifies the perspectives of detecting toxicity and analysing argument structure.
This framework includes a preferential ordering among rebuttal-type tactics, ranging from ad hominem attacks to refuting the central argument.
We show that these annotations can be used to provide useful additional signals to improve performance on the task of predicting escalation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-16T09:01:19Z) - Don't Copy the Teacher: Data and Model Challenges in Embodied Dialogue [92.01165203498299]
Embodied dialogue instruction following requires an agent to complete a complex sequence of tasks from a natural language exchange.
This paper argues that imitation learning (IL) and related low-level metrics are actually misleading and do not align with the goals of embodied dialogue research.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-10T05:51:40Z) - 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) - 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) - Belief-based Generation of Argumentative Claims [13.590746709967373]
We study the task of belief-based claim generation: Given a controversial topic and a set of beliefs, generate an argumentative claim tailored to the beliefs.
To tackle this task, we model the people's prior beliefs through their stances on controversial topics and extend state-of-the-art text generation models to generate claims conditioned on the beliefs.
Our results reveal the limitations of modeling users' beliefs based on their stances, but demonstrate the potential of encoding beliefs into argumentative texts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-01-24T18:07:02Z) - An Exploratory Study of Argumentative Writing by Young Students: A
Transformer-based Approach [10.541633715913514]
We present a computational exploration of argument critique writing by young students.
Middle school students were asked to criticize an argument presented in the prompt, focusing on identifying and explaining the reasoning flaws.
This task resembles an established college-level argument critique task.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-06-17T13:55:31Z) - Aspect-Controlled Neural Argument Generation [65.91772010586605]
We train a language model for argument generation that can be controlled on a fine-grained level to generate sentence-level arguments for a given topic, stance, and aspect.
Our evaluation shows that our generation model is able to generate high-quality, aspect-specific arguments.
These arguments can be used to improve the performance of stance detection models via data augmentation and to generate counter-arguments.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-04-30T20:17:22Z)
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.