Can narratives make arguments more persuasive? And to this end, which narrative features matter most? Although stories are often seen as powerful tools for persuasion, their specific role in online, unstructured argumentation remains underexplored. To address this gap, we present ARGUS, a framework for studying the impact of narration on persuasion in argumentative discourse. ARGUS introduces a new ChangeMyView corpus annotated for story presence and six key narrative features, integrating insights from two established theoretical frameworks that capture both textual narrative features and their effects on recipients. Leveraging both encoder-based classifiers and zero-shot large language models (LLMs), ARGUS identifies stories and narrative features and applies them at scale to examine how different narrative dimensions influence persuasion success in online argumentation.

In this position paper, we advocate for the development of conversational technology that is inherently designed to support and facilitate argumentative processes. We argue that, at present, large language models (LLMs) are inadequate for this purpose, and we propose an ideal technology design aimed at enhancing argumentative skills. This involves re-framing LLMs as tools to exercise our critical thinking skills rather than replacing them. We introduce the concept of reasonable parrots that embody the fundamental principles of relevance, responsibility, and freedom, and that interact through argumentative dialogical moves. These principles and moves arise out of millennia of work in argumentation theory and should serve as the starting point for LLM-based technology that incorporates basic principles of argumentation.

Psychological research has long suggested that storytelling can shape beliefs and behaviors by fostering emotional engagement and narrative transportation. However, it remains unclear whether these effects extend to online argumentative discourse. In this paper, we examine the role of narrative in real-world argumentation using discussions from the ChangeMyView subreddit. Leveraging an automatic story detection model, we analyze how narrative use varies across persuasive comments, user types, discussion outcomes, and the kinds of change being sought. While narrative appears more frequently in some contexts, it is not consistently linked to successful persuasion. Notably, highly persuasive users tend to use narrative less, and storytelling does not demonstrate increased effectiveness for any specific type of persuasive goals. These findings suggest that narrative may play a limited and context-dependent role in online discussions, highlighting the need for computational models of argumentation to account for rhetorical diversity.

In the study of argumentation, the schemes introduced by Walton et al. (2008) represent a significant advancement in understanding and analyzing the structure and function of arguments. Walton's framework is particularly valuable for computational reasoning, as it facilitates the identification of argument patterns and the reconstruction of enthymemes. Despite its practical utility, automatically identifying these schemes remains a challenging problem. To aid human annotators, Visser et al. (2021) developed a decision tree for scheme classification. Building on this foundation, we propose a means-end approach to argument scheme classification that systematically leverages expert knowledge-encoded in a decision tree-to guide language models through a complex classification task. We assess the effectiveness of the means-end approach by conducting a comprehensive comparison with a standard multi-class approach across two datasets, applying both prompting and supervised learning methods to each approach. Our results indicate that the means-end approach, when combined with supervised learning, achieves scores only slightly lower than those of the multi-class classification approach. At the same time, the means-end approach enhances explainability by identifying the specific steps in the decision tree that pose the greatest challenges for each scheme-offering valuable insights for refining the overall means-end classification process.

This paper presents TL;DR Progress, a new tool for exploring the literature on neural text summarization. It organizes 514~papers based on a comprehensive annotation scheme for text summarization approaches and enables fine-grained, faceted search. Each paper was manually annotated to capture aspects such as evaluation metrics, quality dimensions, learning paradigms, challenges addressed, datasets, and document domains. In addition, a succinct indicative summary is provided for each paper, consisting of automatically extracted contextual factors, issues, and proposed solutions. The tool is available online at https://www.tldr-progress.de, a demo video at https://youtu.be/uCVRGFvXUj8

We propose misogyny detection as an Argumentative Reasoning task and we investigate the capacity of large language models (LLMs) to understand the implicit reasoning used to convey misogyny in both Italian and English. The central aim is to generate the missing reasoning link between a message and the implied meanings encoding the misogyny. Our study uses argumentation theory as a foundation to form a collection of prompts in both zero-shot and few-shot settings. These prompts integrate different techniques, including chain-of-thought reasoning and augmented knowledge. Our findings show that LLMs fall short on reasoning capabilities about misogynistic comments and that they mostly rely on their implicit knowledge derived from internalized common stereotypes about women to generate implied assumptions, rather than on inductive reasoning.

Different political ideologies (e.g., liberal and conservative Americans) hold different worldviews, which leads to opposing stances on different issues (e.g., gun control) and, thereby, fostering societal polarization. Arguments are a means of bringing the perspectives of people with different ideologies closer together, depending on how well they reach their audience. In this paper, we study how to computationally turn ineffective arguments into effective arguments for people with certain ideologies by using instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs), looking closely at style features. For development and evaluation, we collect ineffective arguments per ideology from debate.org, and we generate about 30k, which we rewrite using three LLM methods tailored to our task: zero-shot prompting, few-shot prompting, and LLM steering. Our experiments provide evidence that LLMs naturally improve argument effectiveness for liberals. Our LLM-based and human evaluation show a clear preference towards the rewritten arguments. Code and link to the data are available here: https://github.com/roxanneelbaff/emnlp2024-iesta.

This report summarizes the outcomes of the Dagstuhl Seminar 22432: “Towards a Unified Model of Scholarly Argumentation.” The purpose of this Seminar was to enable robust advances in argumentation technology by collecting and collaborating on use cases in scholarly and biomedical discourse and working on a foundational model for argumentation in science and healthcare. Most importantly, the seminar served to develop a multidisciplinary, international research community devoted to building and maintaining principles, tools, and models for studying scholarly argumentation. Over the course of the seminar week

Existing datasets for causality identification in argumentative texts have several limitations, such as the type of input text (e.g., only claims), causality type (e.g., only positive), and the linguistic patterns investigated (e.g., only verb connectives). To resolve these limitations, we build the Webis-Causality-23 dataset, with sophisticated inputs (all units from arguments), a balanced distribution of causality types, and a larger number of linguistic patterns denoting causality. The dataset contains 1485 examples derived by combining the two paradigms of distant supervision and uncertainty sampling to identify diverse, high-quality samples of causality relations, and annotate them in a cost-effective manner.

Online forums encourage the exchange and discussion of different stances on many topics. Not only do they provide an opportunity to present one's own arguments, but may also gather a broad cross-section of others' arguments. However, the resulting long discussions are difficult to overview. This paper presents a novel unsupervised approach using large language models (LLMs) to generating indicative summaries for long discussions that basically serve as tables of contents. Our approach first clusters argument sentences, generates cluster labels as abstractive summaries, and classifies the generated cluster labels into argumentation frames resulting in a two-level summary. Based on an extensively optimized prompt engineering approach, we evaluate 19~LLMs for generative cluster labeling and frame classification. To evaluate the usefulness of our indicative summaries, we conduct a purpose-driven user study via a new visual interface called Discussion Explorer: It shows that our proposed indicative summaries serve as a convenient navigation tool to explore long discussions.

Previous research on argumentation in online discussions has largely focused on examining individual comments and neglected the interactive nature of discussions. In line with previous work, we represent individual comments as sequences of semantic argumentative unit types. However, because it is intuitively necessary for dialogical argumentation to address the opposing viewpoints, we extend this model by clustering type sequences into different argument arrangement patterns and representing discussions as sequences of these patterns. These sequences of patterns are a symbolic representation of argumentation strategies that capture the overall structure of discussions. Using this novel approach, we conduct an in-depth analysis of the strategies in 34,393 discussions from the online discussion forum Change My View and show that our discussion model is effective for persuasiveness prediction, outperforming LLM-based classifiers on the same data. Our results provide valuable insights into argumentation dynamics in online discussions and, through the presented prediction procedure, are of practical importance for writing assistance and persuasive text generation systems.

The Webis-Context-SciSumm-2023 is a large scale dataset suitable for studying contextualized summarization of scientific papers. The corpus contains approximately 540K computer science papers encompassing 4.6M citation texts and relevant information for these citations from the cited papers. The subset (approximately 25K papers) provided contains abstractive summaries of the relevant content from LLaMA (V1) and Vicuna (13B) models. The summaries for the completed dataset will be updated on completion (due to computational constraints).

Current approaches to automatic summarization of scientific papers generate informative summaries in the form of abstracts. However, abstracts are not intended to show the relationship between a paper and the references cited in it. We propose a new contextualized summarization approach that can generate an informative summary conditioned on a given sentence containing the citation of a reference (a so-called ``citance''). This summary outlines content of the cited paper relevant to the citation location. Thus, our approach extracts and models the citances of a paper, retrieves relevant passages from cited papers, and generates abstractive summaries tailored to each citance. We evaluate our approach using **Webis-Context-SciSumm-2023**, a new dataset containing 540K computer science papers and 4.6M citances therein.

Existing studies on the analysis of persuasion in online discussions focus on investigating the effectiveness of comments in discussions and ignore the analysis of the effectiveness of debaters over multiple discussions. In this paper, we propose to quantify debaters effectiveness in the online discussion platform: “ChangeMyView” in order to explore diverse insights into their persuasion strategies. In particular, targeting debaters with different levels of effectiveness (e.g., good vs. bad), various behavioral characteristics (e..g, engagement) and text stylistic features (e.g., used frames) of debaters are carefully examined, leading to several outcomes that can be the backbone of writing assistants and persuasive text generation.

Most research on natural language processing treats bias as an absolute concept: Based on a (probably complex) algorithmic analysis, a sentence, an article, or a text is classified as biased or not. Given the fact that for humans the question of whether a text is biased can be difficult to answer or is answered contradictory, we ask whether an "absolute bias classification" is a promising goal at all. We see the problem not in the complexity of interpreting language phenomena but in the diversity of sociocultural backgrounds of the readers, which cannot be handled uniformly: To decide whether a text has crossed the proverbial line between non-biased and biased is subjective. By asking "Is text X more [less, equally] biased than text Y?" we propose to analyze a simpler problem, which, by its construction, is rather independent of standpoints, views, or sociocultural aspects. In such a model, bias becomes a preference relation that induces a partial ordering from least biased to most biased texts without requiring a decision on where to draw the line. A prerequisite for this kind of bias model is the ability of humans to perceive relative bias differences in the first place. In our research, we selected a specific type of bias in argumentation, the stance bias, and designed a crowdsourcing study showing that differences in stance bias are perceptible when (light) support is provided through training or visual aid.