Analysing Personal Attacks in U.S. Presidential Debates

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.11108v1
• Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:36:26 GMT
• Title: Analysing Personal Attacks in U.S. Presidential Debates
• Authors: Ruban Goyal, Rohitash Chandra, Sonit Singh,
• Abstract summary: Personal attacks have become a notable feature of U.S. presidential debates.<n>We present a framework for analysing personal attacks in U.S. presidential debates.
• Score: 3.503370263836711
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Personal attacks have become a notable feature of U.S. presidential debates and play an important role in shaping public perception during elections. Detecting such attacks can improve transparency in political discourse and provide insights for journalists, analysts and the public. Advances in deep learning and transformer-based models, particularly BERT and large language models (LLMs) have created new opportunities for automated detection of harmful language. Motivated by these developments, we present a framework for analysing personal attacks in U.S. presidential debates. Our work involves manual annotation of debate transcripts across the 2016, 2020 and 2024 election cycles, followed by statistical and language-model based analysis. We investigate the potential of fine-tuned transformer models alongside general-purpose LLMs to detect personal attacks in formal political speech. This study demonstrates how task-specific adaptation of modern language models can contribute to a deeper understanding of political communication.

Related papers

• Latent Topic Synthesis: Leveraging LLMs for Electoral Ad Analysis [51.95395936342771]
  We introduce an end-to-end framework for automatically generating an interpretable topic taxonomy from an unlabeled corpus.<n>We apply this framework to a large corpus of Meta political ads from the month ahead of the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.<n>Our approach uncovers latent discourse structures, synthesizes semantically rich topic labels, and annotates topics with moral framing dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T20:30:20Z)
• Large-Scale, Longitudinal Study of Large Language Models During the 2024 US Election Season [43.092041950140164]
  The 2024 US presidential election is the first major contest to occur in the US since the popularization of large language models (LLMs)<n>This moment raises urgent questions about how LLMs may shape the information ecosystem and influence political discourse.<n>We conduct a large-scale, longitudinal study of 12 models, queried using a structured survey with over 12,000 questions on a near-daily cadence from July through November 2024.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-22T22:04:19Z)
• RooseBERT: A New Deal For Political Language Modelling [10.42456252514389]
  RooseBERT is a pre-trained Language Model for political discourse language.<n>It has been trained on large political debate and speech corpora.<n>We fine-tuned it on four downstream tasks related to political debate analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T09:28:20Z)
• Identifying Fine-grained Forms of Populism in Political Discourse: A Case Study on Donald Trump's Presidential Campaigns [17.242754326635833]
  This paper examines whether Large Language Models can identify and classify fine-grained forms of populism.<n>We evaluate a range of pre-trained (large) language models, both open-weight and proprietary, across multiple prompting paradigms.<n>We find that a fine-tuned RoBERTa classifier vastly outperforms all new-era instruction-tuned LLMs, unless fine-tuned.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T14:18:54Z)
• ElectionSim: Massive Population Election Simulation Powered by Large Language Model Driven Agents [70.17229548653852]
  We introduce ElectionSim, an innovative election simulation framework based on large language models. We present a million-level voter pool sampled from social media platforms to support accurate individual simulation. We also introduce PPE, a poll-based presidential election benchmark to assess the performance of our framework under the U.S. presidential election scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T05:25:50Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Towards More Accurate US Presidential Election via Multi-step Reasoning with Large Language Models [12.582222782098587]
  Election prediction poses unique challenges, such as limited voter-level data, rapidly changing political landscapes, and the need to model complex human behavior.<n>We introduce a multi-step reasoning framework designed for political analysis.<n>Our approach is validated on real-world data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) 2016 and 2020.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T06:18:53Z)
• LLM-POTUS Score: A Framework of Analyzing Presidential Debates with Large Language Models [33.251235538905895]
  This paper introduces a novel approach to evaluating presidential debate performances using large language models. We propose a framework that analyzes candidates' "Policies, Persona, and Perspective" (3P) and how they resonate with the "Interests, Ideologies, and Identity" (3I) of four key audience groups. Our method employs large language models to generate the LLM-POTUS Score, a quantitative measure of debate performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-12T15:40:45Z)
• Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models [56.883423489203786]
  We investigate the political orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics. Our investigation delves into the political alignment of LLMs across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics, spanning from abortion to LGBTQ issues. The findings suggest that users should be mindful when crafting queries, and exercise caution in selecting neutral prompt language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T04:02:24Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)
• A Spanish dataset for Targeted Sentiment Analysis of political headlines [0.0]
  This work addresses the task of Targeted Sentiment Analysis for the domain of news headlines, published by the main outlets during the 2019 Argentinean Presidential Elections. We present a polarity dataset of 1,976 headlines mentioning candidates in the 2019 elections at the target level. Preliminary experiments with state-of-the-art classification algorithms based on pre-trained linguistic models suggest that target information is helpful for this task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-30T01:30:30Z)
• Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur: Visual Communication of Uncertainty in Election Polls [56.8172499765118]
  We discuss potential sources of bias in nowcasting and forecasting. Concepts are presented to attenuate the issue of falsely perceived accuracy. One key idea is the use of Probabilities of Events instead of party shares.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-28T07:02:24Z)

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.