The paper investigates how to detect enthymemes—arguments with unstated premises or conclusions—in controversial political tweets about vaccination and immigration. Despite extensive fine‑tuning, models achieve an F1 score of only about 0.67, prompting the authors to propose new evaluation metrics that compare predictions to the full distribution of annotator votes and a model that directly predicts this distribution. The study also shows that models rely on explicit argumentative structure, often missing implicit links that readers must infer, raising concerns for content moderation systems that depend on majority labels.
arXiv:2606.12186v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Enthymemes, arguments with unstated premises or conclusions, are pervasive in persuasive discourse, yet their annotation remains notoriously subjec...
Enthymemes, arguments with unstated premises or conclusions, are pervasive in persuasive discourse, yet their annotation remains notoriously subjective. We present a resource of 1,482 tweets from politically controversial discourse, annotated by five annotators for the presence of enthymemes and their argument structure, designed to study label variation.
arXiv:2610.09464v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Political discourse often uses rhetorical and persuasive language to frame narratives, influence public opinion, and mobilize audiences. While Bangla n...
The paper introduces a retrieval‑augmented framework for detecting and classifying fallacies in political debate transcripts. By dynamically retrieving documents guided by argumentative relations of support and attack, the method leverages external knowledge to improve performance. Experiments on the ElecDeb60to20 benchmark show significant gains, raising macro‑F1 to 0.864 for detection and 0.725 for classification compared to non‑retrieval baselines.
The study introduces a computational method to distinguish between antagonizing and criticizing rhetoric in political discourse on Twitter/X. Analyzing over 17 million tweets from German trending topics, it finds that roughly one‑third contain antagonizing rhetoric, which is more prevalent in trending discussions than in general Twitter traffic. Right‑leaning users use antagonizing language more than left‑leaning users, and both forms of rhetoric are amplified within political camps, with certain parties—AfD and the Greens—emerging as primary antagonists.
arXiv:2609.27811v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Online platforms have become arenas for the public contestation of climate change, shaping how scientific knowledge, denial, and uncertainty are expr...
The paper introduces the Persuasion Index (PI), a taxonomy of 15 persuasion dimensions grounded in psychological and communication theories, implemented with 55 lexicon- and rule-based sub-features. PI is modular, allowing individual detectors to be swapped while preserving its theoretical framework. Evaluations on four English argumentative datasets show that PI provides a shared, lightweight feature space that captures meaningful predictive signals and reveals consistent dimension-level associations with persuasion outcomes, with variations across topics and stances.
The paper introduces DNE‑ElecDeb, an enriched version of the USElecDeb dataset that annotates Debate Named Entities (DNEs) in both argumentative and non‑argumentative spans, and defines Debate Named Entity Recognition (DNER) as a new task. It proposes Joint Argument and Entity Tagging (JAET), a generative framework that fine‑tunes decoder‑only LLMs to insert inline argument and entity tags into debate turns while preserving the original transcript. JAET achieves significant improvements in joint AM+DNER performance (+27.3% relative F1 in the untyped setting and +41.9% in the typed setting) over sequential pipelines, and these gains generalize to Persuasive Essays (+26.6% and +52.7%).
Political debates are often analyzed through Argument Mining (AM) to investigate the key arguments that drive them. However, political arguments are rarely interpretable from argumentative spans alone...
arXiv:2508. 03250v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The increasing amount of political debates and politics-related discussions calls for the definition of novel computational methods to automatically analyse such content with the final goal of lightening up political deliberation to citizens.
The paper presents an agentic framework for detecting conspiratorial content in social media by inferring the speaker’s intent rather than merely identifying explicit claims. It leverages social context and adaptive tool use, demonstrating superior performance over text-only and non-agentic models on a large Hebrew tweet dataset spanning election cycles and the COVID pandemic. The study highlights the importance of context-aware, reasoning-driven approaches for accurate conspiracy detection.
MABPD (Multi‑Agent Bias Probing & Detection) is a training‑free pipeline that uses three specialized large language model agents to analyze news articles from complementary perspectives and resolve disagreements via a Structured Argument Debate (SAD) protocol. SAD imposes an asymmetric burden of proof—biased claims lacking grounded textual evidence receive zero weight—along with role‑weighted voting and post‑consensus verification, replacing task‑specific supervised decision boundaries. Ablation studies show that the debate module alone accounts for up to a 10.6‑point F1 gain, and on the BABE benchmark MABPD attains 83.4% macro F1, within 0.7 percentage points of the supervised state‑of‑the‑art, while achieving 75.0% zero‑shot accuracy on the SemEval 2019 HyperPartisan corpus.