Investigating Subjective Factors of Argument Strength: Storytelling, Emotions, and Hedging

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17409v1
• Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:09:52 GMT
• Title: Investigating Subjective Factors of Argument Strength: Storytelling, Emotions, and Hedging
• Authors: Carlotta Quensel, Neele Falk, Gabriella Lapesa,
• Abstract summary: We study the impact of subjective factors $-$ emotions, storytelling, and hedging on objective argument quality and subjective persuasion.<n>Our results show that storytelling and hedging have contrasting effects on objective and subjective argument quality, while the influence of emotions depends on their rhetoric utilization rather than the domain.
• Score: 14.950106052554291
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In assessing argument strength, the notions of what makes a good argument are manifold. With the broader trend towards treating subjectivity as an asset and not a problem in NLP, new dimensions of argument quality are studied. Although studies on individual subjective features like personal stories exist, there is a lack of large-scale analyses of the relation between these features and argument strength. To address this gap, we conduct regression analysis to quantify the impact of subjective factors $-$ emotions, storytelling, and hedging $-$ on two standard datasets annotated for objective argument quality and subjective persuasion. As such, our contribution is twofold: at the level of contributed resources, as there are no datasets annotated with all studied dimensions, this work compares and evaluates automated annotation methods for each subjective feature. At the level of novel insights, our regression analysis uncovers different patterns of impact of subjective features on the two facets of argument strength encoded in the datasets. Our results show that storytelling and hedging have contrasting effects on objective and subjective argument quality, while the influence of emotions depends on their rhetoric utilization rather than the domain.

Related papers

• What Makes a Good Natural Language Prompt? [72.3282960118995]
  We conduct a meta-analysis surveying more than 150 prompting-related papers from leading NLP and AI conferences from 2022 to 2025.<n>We propose a property- and human-centric framework for evaluating prompt quality, encompassing 21 properties categorized into six dimensions.<n>We then empirically explore multi-property prompt enhancements in reasoning tasks, observing that single-property enhancements often have the greatest impact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T23:19:27Z)
• Towards Comprehensive Argument Analysis in Education: Dataset, Tasks, and Method [14.718309497236694]
  We propose 14 fine-grained relation types from both vertical and horizontal dimensions.<n>We conduct experiments on three tasks: argument component detection, relation prediction, and automated essay grading.<n>The findings highlight the importance of fine-grained argumentative annotations for argumentative writing quality assessment and encourage multi-dimensional argument analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T14:36:51Z)
• Towards a Perspectivist Turn in Argument Quality Assessment [21.915319388303914]
  We conduct a systematic review of argument quality datasets.<n>We consolidate quality dimensions and who annotated them.<n>We discuss datasets suitable for developing perspectivist models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T12:30:26Z)
• DiPlomat: A Dialogue Dataset for Situated Pragmatic Reasoning [89.92601337474954]
  Pragmatic reasoning plays a pivotal role in deciphering implicit meanings that frequently arise in real-life conversations. We introduce a novel challenge, DiPlomat, aiming at benchmarking machines' capabilities on pragmatic reasoning and situated conversational understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T10:41:23Z)
• Contextualizing Argument Quality Assessment with Relevant Knowledge [11.367297319588411]
  SPARK is a novel method for scoring argument quality based on contextualization via relevant knowledge. We devise four augmentations that leverage large language models to provide feedback, infer hidden assumptions, supply a similar-quality argument, or give a counter-argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-20T21:04:58Z)
• DeltaScore: Fine-Grained Story Evaluation with Perturbations [69.33536214124878]
  We introduce DELTASCORE, a novel methodology that employs perturbation techniques for the evaluation of nuanced story aspects. Our central proposition posits that the extent to which a story excels in a specific aspect (e.g., fluency) correlates with the magnitude of its susceptibility to particular perturbations. We measure the quality of an aspect by calculating the likelihood difference between pre- and post-perturbation states using pre-trained language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T23:45:54Z)
• Towards a Holistic View on Argument Quality Prediction [3.182597245365433]
  A decisive property of arguments is their strength or quality. While there are works on the automated estimation of argument strength, their scope is narrow. We assess the generalization capabilities of argument quality estimation across diverse domains, the interplay with related argument mining tasks, and the impact of emotions on perceived argument strength.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-19T18:44:23Z)
• Learning From Revisions: Quality Assessment of Claims in Argumentation at Scale [12.883536911500062]
  We study claim quality assessment irrespective of discussed aspects by comparing different revisions of the same claim. We propose two tasks: assessing which claim of a revision pair is better, and ranking all versions of a claim by quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-25T17:32:04Z)
• Intrinsic Quality Assessment of Arguments [21.261009977405898]
  We study the intrinsic computational assessment of 15 dimensions, i.e., only learning from an argument's text. We observe moderate but significant learning success for most dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-23T15:16:10Z)
• Weakly-Supervised Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis via Joint Aspect-Sentiment Topic Embedding [71.2260967797055]
  We propose a weakly-supervised approach for aspect-based sentiment analysis. We learn sentiment, aspect> joint topic embeddings in the word embedding space. We then use neural models to generalize the word-level discriminative information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-13T21:33:24Z)
• SubjQA: A Dataset for Subjectivity and Review Comprehension [52.13338191442912]
  We investigate the relationship between subjectivity and question answering (QA) We find that subjectivity is also an important feature in the case of QA, albeit with more intricate interactions between subjectivity and QA performance. We release an English QA dataset (SubjQA) based on customer reviews, containing subjectivity annotations for questions and answer spans across 6 distinct domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-29T15:59:30Z)
• 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.