The SEEMPAD Dataset for Emphatic and Persuasive Argumentation (original) (raw)
Related papers
Emotions in Argumentation: an Empirical Evaluation
2015
Argumentation is often seen as a mechanism to support different forms of reasoning such that decision-making and persuasion, but all these approaches assume a purely rational behavior of the involved actors. However, humans are proved to behave differently, mixing rational and emotional attitudes to guide their actions, and it has been claimed that there exists a strong connection between the argumentation process and the emotions felt by people involved in such process. In this paper, we assess this claim by means of an experiment: during several debates people's argumentation in plain English is connected and compared to the emotions automatically detected from the participants. Our results show a correspondence between emotions and argumentation elements, e.g., when in the argumentation two opposite opinions are conflicting this is reflected in a negative way on the debaters' emotions.
Emotions and personality traits in argumentation: An empirical evaluation1
Argument & Computation, 2017
Argumentation is a mechanism to support different forms of reasoning such as decision making and persuasion and always cast under the light of critical thinking. In the latest years, several computational approaches to argumentation have been proposed to detect conflicting information, take the best decision with respect to the available knowledge, and update our own beliefs when new information arrives. The common point of all these approaches is that they assume a purely rational behavior of the involved actors, be them humans or artificial agents. However, this is not the case as humans are proved to behave differently, mixing rational and emotional attitudes to guide their actions. Some works have claimed that there exists a strong connection between the argumentation process and the emotions felt by people involved in such process. We advocate a complementary, descriptive and experimental method, based on the collection of emotional data about the way human reasoners handle emotions during debate interactions. Across different debates, people's argumentation in plain English is correlated with the emotions automatically detected from the participants, their engagement in the debate, and the mental workload required to debate. Results show several correlations among emotions, engagement and mental workload with respect to the argumentation elements. For instance, when two opposite opinions are conflicting, this is reflected in a negative way on the debaters' emotions. Beside their theoretical value for validating and inspiring computational argumentation theory, these results have applied value for developing artificial agents meant to argue with human users or to assist users in the management of debates.
Emotions in online debates: Tales from 4Forums and ConvinceMe
Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2020
It is increasingly common for people to debate over various topics through online debate forums. While it has been shown that participants' emotional states affect debate processes and outcomes, it is unknown how different types of emotions are represented in online debates and what correlations exist between the emotions and other aspects of the debates such as their debate topic. We conduct a large-scale analysis of the emotions in two online debate forums, namely, 4Forums and ConvinceMe. Specifically, we first develop an emotion recognition algorithm that uses multiple channels BLSTM with a feedforward attention mechanism, which outperforms the state-of-the-art emotion recognition algorithm. Next, we label the emotions of each comment in the selected 4Forums and ConvinceMe discussions and analyze various aspects of the emotion's influence in the online debates. We observe that certain types of emotions are more likely dependent on the debate topic, and the prevalence of different emotions is independent of the individual discussions. We also observe emotion contagion between a comment and the immediately previous comment. We investigate the emotions of different types of respondents are less likely to express joy when they disagree and more likely to express disgust when they attack or disrespect to others.
EVA 2.0: Emotional and rational multimodal argumentation between virtual agents
it - Information Technology
Persuasive argumentation depends on multiple aspects, which include not only the content of the individual arguments, but also the way they are presented. The presentation of arguments is crucial – in particular in the context of dialogical argumentation. However, the effects of different discussion styles on the listener are hard to isolate in human dialogues. In order to demonstrate and investigate various styles of argumentation, we propose a multi-agent system in which different aspects of persuasion can be modelled and investigated separately. Our system utilizes argument structures extracted from text-based reviews for which a minimal bias of the user can be assumed. The persuasive dialogue is modelled as a dialogue game for argumentation that was motivated by the objective to enable both natural and flexible interactions between the agents. In order to support a comparison of factual against affective persuasion approaches, we implemented two fundamentally different strategie...
Persuasive Argumentation and Emotions: An Empirical Evaluation with Users
Human-Computer Interaction. User Interface Design, Development and Multimodality, 2017
In everyday life discussion, people try to persuade each other about the goodness of their viewpoint regarding a certain topic. This persuasion process is usually affected by several elements, like the ability of the speaker in formulating logical arguments, her confidence with respect to the discussed topic, and the emotional solicitation that certain arguments may cause in the audience. In this study, we compare the effect of using one of the three well-known persuasion strategies (Logos, Ethos and Pathos) in the argumentation process. These strategies are used by a moderator who influences the participants during the debates. We study which persuasion strategy is the most effective, and how they vary according to two mental metrics extracted from electroencephalograms: Engagement and workload. Results show that the right hemisphere has the highest engagement when Logos arguments are proposed to participants with Neutral opinion during the debate. We show also that the Logos strategy solicits the highest mental Workload, and the Pathos strategy is the most effective to use in argumentation and to convince the participants.
2021
Customers’ emotions play a vital role in the service industry. The better frontline personnel understand the customer, the better the service they can provide. As human emotions generate certain (unintentional) bodily reactions, such as increase in heart rate, sweating, dilation, blushing and paling, which are measurable, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies can interpret these signals. Great progress has been made in recent years to automatically detect basic emotions like joy, anger etc. Complex emotions, consisting of multiple interdependent basic emotions, are more difficult to identify. One complex emotion which is of great interest to the service industry is difficult to detect: whether a customer is telling the truth or just a story... This research presents an AI-method for capturing and sensing emotional data. With an accuracy of around 98%, the best trained model was able to detect whether a participant of a debating challenge was arguing for or against her/his convic...
VivesDebate: A New Annotated Multilingual Corpus of Argumentation in a Debate Tournament
Applied Sciences
The application of the latest Natural Language Processing breakthroughs in computational argumentation has shown promising results, which have raised the interest in this area of research. However, the available corpora with argumentative annotations are often limited to a very specific purpose or are not of adequate size to take advantage of state-of-the-art deep learning techniques (e.g., deep neural networks). In this paper, we present VivesDebate, a large, richly annotated and versatile professional debate corpus for computational argumentation research. The corpus has been created from 29 transcripts of a debate tournament in Catalan and has been machine-translated into Spanish and English. The annotation contains argumentative propositions, argumentative relations, debate interactions and professional evaluations of the arguments and argumentation. The presented corpus can be useful for research on a heterogeneous set of computational argumentation underlying tasks such as Arg...
Providing arguments in discussions based on the prediction of human argumentative behavior
Argumentative discussion is a highly demanding task. In order to help people in such situations, this paper provides an innovative methodology for developing an agent that can support people in argumentative discussions by proposing possible arguments to them. By analyzing more than 130 human discussions and 140 questionnaires, answered by people, we show that the wellestablished Argumentation Theory is not a good predictor of people's choice of arguments. Then, we present a model that has 76% accuracy when predicting peoples top three argument choices given a partial deliberation. We present the Predictive and Relevance based Heuristic agent (PRH), which uses this model with a heuristic that estimates the relevance of possible arguments to the last argument given in order to propose possible arguments. Through extensive human studies with over 200 human subjects, we show that peoples satisfaction from the PRH agent is significantly higher than from other agents that propose arguments based on Argumentation Theory, predict arguments without the heuristics or only the heuristics. People also use the PRH agent's proposed arguments significantly more often than those proposed by the other agents.
2013
Abstract. Emotions are commonly thought to be beyond the pale of rational analysis, for they are subjective, may vary even with respect to the person experiencing the emotion, and may conflict with rational thought. In this paper, we develop the position that emotions can be the objects of argumentation, which we express by introducing emotion terms in emotional argumentation schemes. Thus, we can argue about whether or not, according to normative standards and available evidence, it is plausible that an individual had a particular emotion. This is particularly salient in legal cases, where decisions can depend on explicit arguments about emotional states.
The evaluation of emotional arguments: a test run
In a recent paper (ISSA 2010), Groarke proposes a view of emotional arguments that seems too narrow. While his notion of pathos and emotional arguments may aid in the development of normative analysis, it is not sufficient in addressing all emotional arguments and is guilty of strictly adhering to the tradition's conception of emotion's place in argumentation. I suggest an alternative evaluation of emotional arguments-relying on Walton's dialogue types and goals as its foundation.