Analyzing Biases in Political Dialogue: Tagging U.S. Presidential Debates with an Extended DAMSL Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19515v2
• Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 04:54:43 GMT
• Title: Analyzing Biases in Political Dialogue: Tagging U.S. Presidential Debates with an Extended DAMSL Framework
• Authors: Lavanya Prahallad, Radhika Mamidi,
• Abstract summary: We present a critical discourse analysis of the 2024 U.S. presidential debates, examining Donald Trump's rhetorical strategies.<n>We introduce a novel annotation framework, BEADS, which captures bias driven and adversarial discourse features in political communication.<n>Our analysis shows that Trump consistently dominated in key categories: Challenge and Adversarial Exchanges, Selective Emphasis, Appeal to Fear, Political Bias, and Perceived Dismissiveness.
• Score: 6.200058263544999
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We present a critical discourse analysis of the 2024 U.S. presidential debates, examining Donald Trump's rhetorical strategies in his interactions with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. We introduce a novel annotation framework, BEADS (Bias Enriched Annotation for Dialogue Structure), which systematically extends the DAMSL framework to capture bias driven and adversarial discourse features in political communication. BEADS includes a domain and language agnostic set of tags that model ideological framing, emotional appeals, and confrontational tactics. Our methodology compares detailed human annotation with zero shot ChatGPT assisted tagging on verified transcripts from the Trump and Biden (19,219 words) and Trump and Harris (18,123 words) debates. Our analysis shows that Trump consistently dominated in key categories: Challenge and Adversarial Exchanges, Selective Emphasis, Appeal to Fear, Political Bias, and Perceived Dismissiveness. These findings underscore his use of emotionally charged and adversarial rhetoric to control the narrative and influence audience perception. In this work, we establish BEADS as a scalable and reproducible framework for critical discourse analysis across languages, domains, and political contexts.

Related papers

• Talking Point based Ideological Discourse Analysis in News Events [62.18747509565779]
  We propose a framework motivated by the theory of ideological discourse analysis to analyze news articles related to real-world events.<n>Our framework represents the news articles using a relational structure - talking points, which captures the interaction between entities, their roles, and media frames along with a topic of discussion.<n>We evaluate our framework's ability to generate these perspectives through automated tasks - ideology and partisan classification tasks, supplemented by human validation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T02:52:34Z)
• Sympathy over Polarization: A Computational Discourse Analysis of Social Media Posts about the July 2024 Trump Assassination Attempt [7.484950789973326]
  We investigate how public sentiment toward Donald Trump shifts over time and across regions.<n>We explore the major themes in online conversations before and after the crisis.<n>By integrating large language model-based sentiment analysis, difference-in-differences modeling, and topic modeling techniques, we find that following the attempt the public response was broadly sympathetic to Trump.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-17T04:26:13Z)
• Analyzing political stances on Twitter in the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. election [1.2764774886497106]
  We investigate the ideological positioning of tweets related to the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election.<n>We classify ideological stances into Pro-Democrat, Anti-Republican, Pro-Republican, Anti-Democrat, and Neutral categories.<n>We find that Republican candidates author significantly more tweets in criticism of the Democratic party and its candidates than vice versa.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-28T07:05:34Z)
• Red and blue language: Word choices in the Trump & Harris 2024 presidential debate [5.2617184697694475]
  We analyse how the language of Trump and Harris differs in relation to the following semantic and pragmatic features. Harris often framing issues around recovery and empowerment, Trump often focused on crisis and decline. No significant difference in the specificity of candidates' responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T15:19:03Z)
• Context Does Matter: Implications for Crowdsourced Evaluation Labels in Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems [57.16442740983528]
  Crowdsourced labels play a crucial role in evaluating task-oriented dialogue systems. Previous studies suggest using only a portion of the dialogue context in the annotation process. This study investigates the influence of dialogue context on annotation quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T17:56:39Z)
• Quantifying the Uniqueness of Donald Trump in Presidential Discourse [51.76056700705539]
  This paper introduces a novel metric of uniqueness based on large language models. We find considerable evidence that Trump's speech patterns diverge from those of all major party nominees for the presidency in recent history.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-02T19:00:17Z)
• CDConv: A Benchmark for Contradiction Detection in Chinese Conversations [74.78715797366395]
  We propose a benchmark for Contradiction Detection in Chinese Conversations, namely CDConv. It contains 12K multi-turn conversations annotated with three typical contradiction categories: Intra-sentence Contradiction, Role Confusion, and History Contradiction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-16T11:37:09Z)
• 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)
• Characterizing Partisan Political Narratives about COVID-19 on Twitter [2.5599656137521425]
  We characterize and compare the pandemic narratives of the Democratic and Republican politicians on social media. By analyzing tweets from the politicians in the U.S., we uncover the contrasting narratives in terms of topics, frames, and agents. Our findings concretely expose the gaps in the "elusive consensus" between the two parties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-11T21:24:41Z)
• 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)
• Hate Towards the Political Opponent: A Twitter Corpus Study of the 2020 US Elections on the Basis of Offensive Speech and Stance Detection [11.335643770130238]
  We investigate online communication of the supporters of the candidates Biden and Trump, by uttering hateful and offensive communication. We formulate an annotation task, in which we join the tasks of hateful/offensive speech detection and stance detection. We analyze if supporters of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party communicate differently than supporters of Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-02T11:59:54Z)
• Is this Dialogue Coherent? Learning from Dialogue Acts and Entities [82.44143808977209]
  We create the Switchboard Coherence (SWBD-Coh) corpus, a dataset of human-human spoken dialogues annotated with turn coherence ratings. Our statistical analysis of the corpus indicates how turn coherence perception is affected by patterns of distribution of entities. We find that models combining both DA and entity information yield the best performances both for response selection and turn coherence rating.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-17T21:02:40Z)

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.