Computational Argumentation for the Automatic Analysis of Argumentative Discourse and Human Persuasion

Tesis por compendio[ES] La argumentación computacional es el área de investigación que estudia y analiza el uso de distintas técnicas y algoritmos que aproximan el razonamiento argumentativo humano desde un punto de vista computacional. En esta tesis doctoral se estudia el uso de distintas técnicas propuestas bajo el marco de la argumentación computacional para realizar un análisis automático del discurso argumentativo, y para desarrollar técnicas de persuasión computacional basadas en argumentos. Con estos objetivos, en primer lugar se presenta una completa revisión del estado del arte y se propone una clasificación de los trabajos existentes en el área de la argumentación computacional. Esta revisión nos permite contextualizar y entender la investigación previa de forma más clara desde la perspectiva humana del razonamiento argumentativo, así como identificar las principales limitaciones y futuras tendencias de la investigación realizada en argumentación computacional. En segundo lugar, con el objetivo de solucionar algunas de estas limitaciones, se ha creado y descrito un nuevo conjunto de datos que permite abordar nuevos retos y investigar problemas previamente inabordables (e.g., evaluación automática de debates orales). Conjuntamente con estos datos, se propone un nuevo sistema para la extracción automática de argumentos y se realiza el análisis comparativo de distintas técnicas para esta misma tarea. Además, se propone un nuevo algoritmo para la evaluación automática de debates argumentativos y se prueba con debates humanos reales. Finalmente, en tercer lugar se presentan una serie de estudios y propuestas para mejorar la capacidad persuasiva de sistemas de argumentación computacionales en la interacción con usuarios humanos. De esta forma, en esta tesis se presentan avances en cada una de las partes principales del proceso de argumentación computacional (i.e., extracción automática de argumentos, representación del conocimiento y razonamiento basados en argumentos, e interacción humano-computador basada en argumentos), así como se proponen algunos de los cimientos esenciales para el análisis automático completo de discursos argumentativos en lenguaje natural.[CA] L'argumentació computacional és l'àrea de recerca que estudia i analitza l'ús de distintes tècniques i algoritmes que aproximen el raonament argumentatiu humà des d'un punt de vista computacional. En aquesta tesi doctoral s'estudia l'ús de distintes tècniques proposades sota el marc de l'argumentació computacional per a realitzar una anàlisi automàtic del discurs argumentatiu, i per a desenvolupar tècniques de persuasió computacional basades en arguments. Amb aquestos objectius, en primer lloc es presenta una completa revisió de l'estat de l'art i es proposa una classificació dels treballs existents en l'àrea de l'argumentació computacional. Aquesta revisió permet contextualitzar i entendre la investigació previa de forma més clara des de la perspectiva humana del raonament argumentatiu, així com identificar les principals limitacions i futures tendències de la investigació realitzada en argumentació computacional. En segon lloc, amb l'objectiu de sol$\cdot$lucionar algunes d'aquestes limitacions, hem creat i descrit un nou conjunt de dades que ens permet abordar nous reptes i investigar problemes prèviament inabordables (e.g., avaluació automàtica de debats orals). Conjuntament amb aquestes dades, es proposa un nou sistema per a l'extracció d'arguments i es realitza l'anàlisi comparativa de distintes tècniques per a aquesta mateixa tasca. A més a més, es proposa un nou algoritme per a l'avaluació automàtica de debats argumentatius i es prova amb debats humans reals. Finalment, en tercer lloc es presenten una sèrie d'estudis i propostes per a millorar la capacitat persuasiva de sistemes d'argumentació computacionals en la interacció amb usuaris humans. D'aquesta forma, en aquesta tesi es presenten avanços en cada una de les parts principals del procés d'argumentació computacional (i.e., l'extracció automàtica d'arguments, la representació del coneixement i raonament basats en arguments, i la interacció humà-computador basada en arguments), així com es proposen alguns dels fonaments essencials per a l'anàlisi automàtica completa de discursos argumentatius en llenguatge natural.[EN] Computational argumentation is the area of research that studies and analyses the use of different techniques and algorithms that approximate human argumentative reasoning from a computational viewpoint. In this doctoral thesis we study the use of different techniques proposed under the framework of computational argumentation to perform an automatic analysis of argumentative discourse, and to develop argument-based computational persuasion techniques. With these objectives in mind, we first present a complete review of the state of the art and propose a classification of existing works in the area of computational argumentation. This review allows us to contextualise and understand the previous research more clearly from the human perspective of argumentative reasoning, and to identify the main limitations and future trends of the research done in computational argumentation. Secondly, to overcome some of these limitations, we create and describe a new corpus that allows us to address new challenges and investigate on previously unexplored problems (e.g., automatic evaluation of spoken debates). In conjunction with this data, a new system for argument mining is proposed and a comparative analysis of different techniques for this same task is carried out. In addition, we propose a new algorithm for the automatic evaluation of argumentative debates and we evaluate it with real human debates. Thirdly, a series of studies and proposals are presented to improve the persuasiveness of computational argumentation systems in the interaction with human users. In this way, this thesis presents advances in each of the main parts of the computational argumentation process (i.e., argument mining, argument-based knowledge representation and reasoning, and argument-based human-computer interaction), and proposes some of the essential foundations for the complete automatic analysis of natural language argumentative discourses.This thesis has been partially supported by the Generalitat Valenciana project PROME- TEO/2018/002 and by the Spanish Government projects TIN2017-89156-R and PID2020- 113416RB-I00.Ruiz Dolz, R. (2023). Computational Argumentation for the Automatic Analysis of Argumentative Discourse and Human Persuasion [Tesis doctoral]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/194806Compendi

Can Havruta Style Learning Be a Best Practice in Law School?

Havruta is a traditional Jewish method that seems compatible with legal education because of its focus on process, and so adaptable to law school training in legal reasoning, and because it is based upon dispute and resolution, another aspect that corresponds with the study of law. A unique form of collaborative student centered learning involving pairs of students, this article considers the application of Havruta to the law school setting and whether it should be incorporated into the law school curriculum

Content Selection for Effective Counter-Argument Generation

The information ecosystem of social media has resulted in an abundance of opinions on political topics and current events. In order to encourage better discussions, it is important to promote high-quality responses and relegate low-quality ones. We thus focus on automatically analyzing and generating counter-arguments in response to posts on social media with the goal of providing effective responses. This thesis is composed of three parts. In the first part, we conduct an analysis of arguments. Specifically, we first annotate discussions from Reddit for aspects of arguments and then analyze them for their persuasive impact. Then we present approaches to identify the argumentative structure of these discussions and predict the persuasiveness of an argument. We evaluate each component independently using automatic or manual evaluations and show significant improvement in each. In the second part, we leverage our discoveries from our analysis in the process of generating counter-arguments. We develop two approaches in the retrieve-and-edit framework, where we obtain content using methods created during our analysis of arguments, among others, and then modify the content using techniques from natural language generation. In the first approach, we develop an approach to retrieve counter-arguments by annotating a dataset for stance and building models for stance prediction. Then we use our approaches from our analysis of arguments to extract persuasive argumentative content before modifying non-content phrases for coherence. In contrast, in the second approach we create a dataset and models for modifying content -- making semantic edits to a claim to have a contrasting stance. We evaluate our approaches using intrinsic automatic evaluation of our predictive models and an overall human evaluation of our generated output. Finally, in the third part, we discuss the semantic challenges of argumentation that we need to solve in order to make progress in the understanding of arguments. To clarify, we develop new methods for identifying two types of semantic relations -- causality and veracity. For causality, we build a distant-labeled dataset of causal relations using lexical indicators and then we leverage features from those indicators to build predictive models. For veracity, we build new models to retrieve evidence given a claim and predict whether the claim is supported by that evidence. We also develop a new dataset for veracity to illuminate the areas that need progress. We evaluate these approaches using automated and manual techniques and obtain significant improvement over strong baselines. Finally, we apply these techniques to claims in the domain of household electricity consumption, mining claims using our methods for causal relations and then verifying their truthfulness

Preparing ESL undergraduates for freshman composition through cooperative learning, collaborative writing, and portfolio grading: a course design rationale and case study

This thesis describes and examines an experimental ESL composition course that featured cooperative learning and collaborative writing , a course that also involved thematic sequencing of assignments and portfolio grading of students\u27 individual writing. The course was a revised version of Iowa State University\u27s English 101C (Advanced Composition for Non-Native Speakers of English), with the revisions directed toward the attainment of the official course goal of preparing ESL students for the Iowa State First Year Composition Program. The changes in the course enabled 101C students to write assignments modeled on ISU freshman composition assignments--particularly academic and argumentative writing assignments

Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory

Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing, but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found

The impact of task type on learners\u27 argumentation, participation and collaboration in online discussions.

Task type is a fundamental element that directs learners’ interactions in collaboration. The study grounds its design in McGrath’s (1984) Group Task Circumplex and examines students’ online behaviors, processes of argumentation, and collaboration. Students were asked to solve an authentic organizational challenge in a five-day online discussion in a blended (face-to-face and online) undergraduate business course. Two kinds of tasks were given: a task with an open-ended question, and a task with two contrasting alternatives. Twenty-three groups (107 students) agreed to participate; the content of their posts and participation (click-stream) data were collected. The results show that the groups given an open-ended question participated more actively in reviewing and reading activities; they also challenged others more often and provided more supporting reasons and evidence, but there seemed to be an unequal distribution of efforts among group members in the time they spent reviewing and the length of posts they made