Abstract
Governments around the world are increasingly utilising online platforms and social media to engage with, and ascertain the opinions of, their citizens. Whilst policy makers could potentially benefit from such enormous feedback from society, they first face the challenge of making sense out of the large volumes of data produced. In this article, we show how the analysis of argumentative and dialogical structures allows for the principled identification of those issues that are central, controversial, or popular in an online corpus of debates. Although areas such as controversy mining work towards identifying issues that are a source of disagreement, by looking at the deeper argumentative structure, we show that a much richer understanding can be obtained. We provide results from using a pipeline of argument-mining techniques on the debate corpus, showing that the accuracy obtained is sufficient to automatically identify those issues that are key to the discussion, attracting proportionately more support than others, and those that are divisive, attracting proportionately more conflicting viewpoints.
- Filip Boltužić and Jan Šnajder. 2015. Identifying prominent arguments in online debates using semantic textual similarity. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining. Association for Computational Linguistics, Denver, CO, 110--115.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Sergey Brin and Larry Page. 1998. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. Comput. Net. ISDN Syst. 30 (1998), 107--117. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Carlos Chesñevar, Sanjay Modgil, Iyad Rahwan, Chris Reed, Guillermo Simari, Matthew South, Gerard Vreeswijk, Steven Willmott, and others. 2006. Towards an argument interchange format. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21, 4 (2006), 293--316. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Yoonjung Choi, Yuchul Jung, and Sung-Hyon Myaeng. 2010. Identifying controversial issues and their sub-topics in news articles. In Intelligence and Security Informatics. Springer, 140--153. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Rory Duthie, John Lawrence, Katarzyna Budzynska, and Chris Reed. 2016. The CASS technique for evaluating the performance of argument mining. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Argumentation Mining. Association for Computational Linguistics, Berlin.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Ernesto Estrada. 2000. Characterization of 3D molecular structure. Chem. Phys. Lett. 319, 5 (2000), 713--718.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Cynthia R. Farina and Mary J. Newhart. 2013. Rulemaking 2.0: Understanding and getting better public participation. Cornell e-Rulemaking Initiative Publications (2013).Google Scholar
- Vanessa Wei Feng and Graeme Hirst. 2011. Classifying arguments by scheme. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies-Volume 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, 987--996. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Stefan Gries. 2009. Quantitative Corpus Linguistics with R. A Practical Introduction. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Mark Howard. 2001. e-Government across the globe: How will ‘e’ change government. Government Finance Review 17, 4 (2001), 6--9.Google Scholar
- Mathilde Janier, John Lawrence, and Chris Reed. 2014. OVA+: An argument analysis interface. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’14). 463--464.Google Scholar
- Maurice G. Kendall. 1938. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30, 1/2 (1938), 81--93.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Aniket Kittur, Bongwon Suh, Bryan A. Pendleton, and Ed H. Chi. 2007. He says, she says: Conflict and coordination in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 453--462. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jey Han Lau and Timothy Baldwin. 2016. An empirical evaluation of doc2vec with practical insights into document embedding generation. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP. Association for Computational Linguistics, Berlin, Germany, 78--86.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- John Lawrence, Floris Bex, Chris Reed, and Mark Snaith. 2012. AIFdb: Infrastructure for the argument web. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’12). 515--516.Google Scholar
- John Lawrence and Chris Reed. 2015a. In Argument Mining using Argumentation Scheme Structures. (In review)Google Scholar
- John Lawrence and Chris Reed. 2015b. Combining argument mining techniques. In Working Notes of the 2nd Argumentation Mining Workshop (ACL’15).Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- John Lawrence, Chris Reed, Colin Allen, Simon McAlister, and Andrew Ravenscroft. 2014. Mining arguments from 19th century philosophical texts using topic based modelling. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining. Association for Computational Linguistics, Baltimore, MD, 79--87.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Quoc V. Le and Tomas Mikolov. 2014. Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In ICML, Vol. 14. 1188--1196. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Beth Levin. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
- Ziheng Lin, Min-Yen Kan, and Hwee Tou Ng. 2009. Recognizing implicit discourse relations in the penn discourse treebank. In EMNLP. 343--351. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Daniel Marcu and Abdessamad Echihabi. 2002. An unsupervised approach to recognizing discourse relations. In ACL. 368--375. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S. Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 3111--3119. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- George A. Miller. 1995. WordNet: A lexical database for english. Commun. ACM 38, 11 (1995), 39--41. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Amita Misra, Pranav Anand, Jean Fox Tree, and Marilyn Walker. 2015. Using summarization to discover argument facets in online idealogical dialog. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics--Human Language Technologies (NAACL HLT’15).Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Marie-Francine Moens, Erik Boiy, Raquel Mochales Palau, and Chris Reed. 2007. Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (2007). ACM, 225--230. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- M. Jae Moon. 2002. The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Publ. Admin. Rev. 62, 4 (2002), 424--433.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Raquel Mochales Palau and Marie-Francine Moens. 2009. Argumentation mining: The detection, classification and structure of arguments in text. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (2009). ACM, 98--107. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Joonsuk Park, Cheryl Blake, and Claire Cardie. 2015. Toward machine-assisted participation in eRulemaking: An argumentation model of evaluability. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’15). Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Joonsuk Park and Claire Cardie. 2012. Improving implicit discourse relation recognition through feature set optimization. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL’12). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, 108--112. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Joonsuk Park and Claire Cardie. 2014. Identifying appropriate support for propositions in online user comments. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Argumentation Mining. Association for Computational Linguistics, 29--38.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Joonsuk Park, Sally Klingel, Claire Cardie, Mary Newhart, Cynthia Farina, and Joan-Josep Vallbé. 2012. Facilitative moderation for online participation in eRulemaking. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. ACM, 173--182. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Andreas Peldszus. 2014. Towards segment-based recognition of argumentation structure in short texts. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Argumentation Mining.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Andreas Peldszus and Manfred Stede. 2015a. An annotated corpus of argumentative microtexts. In Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation.Google Scholar
- Andreas Peldszus and Manfred Stede. 2015b. Towards detecting counter-considerations in text. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining (ARG-MINING 2015).Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Emily Pitler, Annie Louis, and Ani Nenkova. 2009. Automatic sense prediction for implicit discourse relations in text. In ACL/AFNLP. 683--691. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ana-Maria Popescu and Marco Pennacchiotti. 2010. Detecting controversial events from twitter. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 1873--1876. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind K. Joshi, and Bonnie L. Webber. 2008. The penn discourse treebank 2.0. In LREC. Citeseer.Google Scholar
- I. Rahwan, F. Zablith, and C. Reed. 2007. Laying the foundations for a worldwide argument web. Artif. Intell. 171, 10--15 (2007), 897--921. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Sara Rosenthal and Kathleen McKeown. 2015. I couldnt agree more: The role of conversational structure in agreement and disagreement detection in online discussions. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue. 168.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Christian Stab and Iryna Gurevych. 2014. Annotating argument components and relations in persuasive essays. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2014). 1501--1510.Google Scholar
- Simone Teufel. 1999. Argumentative Zoning: Information Extraction from Scientific Text. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
- Simone Teufel and Marc Moens. 2002. Summarizing scientific articles: Experiments with relevance and rhetorical status. Comput. Ling. 28, 4 (2002), 409--445. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Frans H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, and Arnolda Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-dialectical Study. Vol. 12. Springer Science 8 Business Media.Google Scholar
- Marilyn A. Walker, Jean E. Fox Tree, Pranav Anand, Rob Abbott, and Joseph King. 2012. A corpus for research on deliberation and debate. In LREC. 812--817.Google Scholar
- Douglas N. Walton, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Bonnie Webber, Markus Egg, and Valia Kordoni. 2012. Discourse structure and language technology. Nat. Lang. Eng. 18, 4 (2012), 437--490. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ben Wellner, Lisa Ferro, Warren R. Greiff, and Lynette Hirschman. 2006. Reading comprehension tests for computer-based understanding evaluation. Nat. Lang. Eng. 12, 4 (2006), 305--334. Google Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
Using Argumentative Structure to Interpret Debates in Online Deliberative Democracy and eRulemaking
Recommendations
Debating Technology for Dialogical Argument: Sensemaking, Engagement, and Analytics
Special Issue on Argumentation in Social Media and Regular PapersDebating technologies, a newly emerging strand of research into computational technologies to support human debating, offer a powerful way of providing naturalistic, dialogue-based interaction with complex information spaces. The full potential of ...
Reconciling Governmental Use of Online Targeting With Democracy
FAccT '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and TransparencyThe societal and epistemological implications of online targeted advertising have been scrutinized by AI ethicists, legal scholars, and policymakers alike. However, the government’s use of online targeting and its consequential socio-political ...
Bureaucratic discretion and deliberative democracy
eTransformation in governanceAdministrative discretion is both a strength and a weakness of contemporary political systems. Governments could not govern without the capacity to fill in legislation with detailed administrative regulations. Further, these regulations tend to reflect ...






Comments