arXiv Computation and Language
A Resource for Enthymeme Detection in Controversial Political Discourse
Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
Related stories
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 10
A Resource for Enthymeme Detection in Controversial Political Discourse
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.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
3d ago
Who Argues What? Joint Argument-Entity Detection and Classification in Political Debates
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 Computation and Language
3d ago
Who Argues What? Joint Argument-Entity Detection and Classification in Political Debates
arXiv:2609.10192v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Political debates are often analyzed through Argument Mining (AM) to investigate the key arguments that drive them. However, political arguments are ra...
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31
Retrieving Relations, Detecting Fallacies: A RAG Approach to Political Debate Analysis
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.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1
Evaluating the Capabilities of LLMs for Persuasive Dialogue
The paper introduces “Persuasio”, a multi‑agent dialogue platform that uses a formal argumentation theory to adjudicate winners in free‑text debates. Using this system, the authors generated 192 debates on a UK political topic involving humans and large language models (LLMs), and evaluated 22 interlocutors through automated adjudication and 9,702 crowdsourced pairwise judgments across 1,386 annotation instances. The results show a consistent decoupling between subjective persuasiveness—where LLMs dominate—and formal argumentative strength—where humans remain competitive, with multi‑agent and retrieval‑augmented variants widening this gap.
arXiv AI
Jun 17
RooseBERT: A New Deal For Political Language Modelling
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.