skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Using Argumentative Structure to Interpret Debates in Online Deliberative Democracy and eRulemaking

Authors Info & Claims
Published:09 July 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.

References

  1. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Ernesto Estrada. 2000. Characterization of 3D molecular structure. Chem. Phys. Lett. 319, 5 (2000), 713--718.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Cynthia R. Farina and Mary J. Newhart. 2013. Rulemaking 2.0: Understanding and getting better public participation. Cornell e-Rulemaking Initiative Publications (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Stefan Gries. 2009. Quantitative Corpus Linguistics with R. A Practical Introduction. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Mark Howard. 2001. e-Government across the globe: How will ‘e’ change government. Government Finance Review 17, 4 (2001), 6--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Maurice G. Kendall. 1938. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30, 1/2 (1938), 81--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. John Lawrence and Chris Reed. 2015a. In Argument Mining using Argumentation Scheme Structures. (In review)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. John Lawrence and Chris Reed. 2015b. Combining argument mining techniques. In Working Notes of the 2nd Argumentation Mining Workshop (ACL’15).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Quoc V. Le and Tomas Mikolov. 2014. Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In ICML, Vol. 14. 1188--1196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Beth Levin. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Ziheng Lin, Min-Yen Kan, and Hwee Tou Ng. 2009. Recognizing implicit discourse relations in the penn discourse treebank. In EMNLP. 343--351. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Daniel Marcu and Abdessamad Echihabi. 2002. An unsupervised approach to recognizing discourse relations. In ACL. 368--375. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. George A. Miller. 1995. WordNet: A lexical database for english. Commun. ACM 38, 11 (1995), 39--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. M. Jae Moon. 2002. The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Publ. Admin. Rev. 62, 4 (2002), 424--433.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Andreas Peldszus. 2014. Towards segment-based recognition of argumentation structure in short texts. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Argumentation Mining.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Andreas Peldszus and Manfred Stede. 2015a. An annotated corpus of argumentative microtexts. In Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Emily Pitler, Annie Louis, and Ani Nenkova. 2009. Automatic sense prediction for implicit discourse relations in text. In ACL/AFNLP. 683--691. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Simone Teufel. 1999. Argumentative Zoning: Information Extraction from Scientific Text. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Edinburgh.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Simone Teufel and Marc Moens. 2002. Summarizing scientific articles: Experiments with relevance and rhetorical status. Comput. Ling. 28, 4 (2002), 409--445. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Douglas N. Walton, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Bonnie Webber, Markus Egg, and Valia Kordoni. 2012. Discourse structure and language technology. Nat. Lang. Eng. 18, 4 (2012), 437--490. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Using Argumentative Structure to Interpret Debates in Online Deliberative Democracy and eRulemaking

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
          ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 17, Issue 3
          Special Issue on Argumentation in Social Media and Regular Papers
          August 2017
          201 pages
          ISSN:1533-5399
          EISSN:1557-6051
          DOI:10.1145/3106680
          • Editor:
          • Munindar P. Singh
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2017 ACM

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 9 July 2017
          • Accepted: 1 December 2016
          • Revised: 1 November 2016
          • Received: 1 January 2016
          Published in toit Volume 17, Issue 3

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!