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...
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%).
By Lucio La Cava, Stefano Francesco Monea, Sergio Greco
arXiv:2608.29884v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: We show that sequence-level distillation from a capable long-context teacher model is a simple, annotation-free, and data-efficient strategy for improv...
By Mohamed Elaraby, Ahmed Elhady, Diane Litman
The paper introduces a meta‑study that reviews state‑of‑the‑art end‑to‑end argument mining (AM) pipelines. It proposes a triple‑perspective framework—linguistic, computational, and domain—to analyze how these pipelines model, compute, and incorporate domain knowledge into argument structures. The authors also outline a general design for the linguistic and computational aspects, aiming to standardize methodology descriptions and enable clearer comparisons among AM approaches.
By Siddharth Bhargava, Sara Tonelli, Patricia Mart\'in-Rodilla
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.
By Jordan Robinson, Angus R. Williams, Katie Atkinson, Anthony G. Cohn
arXiv:2606. 01736v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As LLMs are increasingly used to draft public-facing arguments, they may flatten public debate by repeatedly introducing the same polished, plausible arguments.
By Yekyung Kim, Yapei Chang, Chau Minh Pham, Mohit Iyyer