research-article

Modeling Inter Round Attack of Online Debaters for Winner Prediction

Authors:

Fa-Hsuan Hsiao,

Hen-Hsen Huang,

Hsin-Hsi ChenAuthors Info & Claims

WWW '22: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022

Pages 2860 - 2869

https://doi.org/10.1145/3485447.3512006

Published: 25 April 2022 Publication History

Abstract

In a debate, two debaters with opposite stances put forward arguments to fight for their viewpoints. Debaters organize their arguments to support their proposition and attack opponents’ points. The common purpose of debating is to persuade the opponents and the audiences to agree with the mentioned propositions. Previous works have investigated the issue of identifying which debater is more persuasive. However, modeling the interaction of arguments between rounds is rarely discussed. In this paper, we focus on assessing the overall performance of debaters in a multi-round debate on online forums. To predict the winner in a multi-round debate, we propose a novel neural model that is aimed at capturing the interaction of arguments by exploiting raw text, structure information, argumentative discourse units (ADUs), and the relations among ADUs. Experimental results show that our model achieves competitive performance compared with the existing models, and is capable of extracting essential argument relations during a multi-round debate by leveraging argumentative structure and attention mechanism.

References

[1]

Jordan Beck, Bikalpa Neupane, and John M Carroll. 2018. Managing Conflict in Online Debate Communities: Foregrounding Moderators’ Beliefs and Values on Kialo. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/cdfq7

[2]

Eric Bolton, Alex Calderwood, Niles Christensen, Jerome Kafrouni, and Iddo Drori. 2020. High Quality Real-Time Structured Debate Generation. CoRR abs/2012.00209(2020). arxiv:2012.00209https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00209

[3]

Filip Boltuzic and Jan Snajder. 2014. Back up your Stance: Recognizing Arguments in Online Discussions. In ArgMining@ACL. 49–58. http://aclweb.org/anthology/W/W14/W14-2107.pdf

[4]

Elena Cabrio and Serena Villata. 2018. Five Years of Argument Mining: a Data-driven Analysis. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 5427–5433. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2018/766

[5]

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Christopher Hidey, Smaranda Muresan, Kathy McKeown, and Alyssa Hwang. 2019. AMPERSAND: Argument Mining for PERSuAsive oNline Discussions. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong, China, 2933–2943. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1291

[6]

Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. CoRR abs/1603.02754(2016). arxiv:1603.02754http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.02754

[7]

Robin Cohen. 1987. Analyzing the Structure of Argumentative Discourse. Computational Linguistics 13 (1987), 11–24. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/J87-1002

Digital Library

[8]

Esin Durmus and Claire Cardie. 2019. A Corpus for Modeling User and Language Effects in Argumentation on Online Debating. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, Italy, 602–607. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1057

[9]

Esin Durmus and Claire Cardie. 2019. Modeling the Factors of User Success in Online Debate. The World Wide Web Conference(2019).

[10]

Ryo Egawa, Gaku Morio, and Katsuhide Fujita. 2020. Corpus for Modeling User Interactions in Online Persuasive Discussions. In Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. European Language Resources Association, Marseille, France, 1135–1141. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.lrec-1.143

[11]

Debanjan Ghosh, Aquila Khanam, Yubo Han, and Smaranda Muresan. 2016. Coarse-grained argumentation features for scoring persuasive essays. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers). 549–554.

[12]

Valentin Gold, Mennatallah El-Assady, Annette Hautli-Janisz, Tina Bögel, Christian Rohrdantz, Miriam Butt, Katharina Holzinger, and Daniel Keim. 2015. Visual linguistic analysis of political discussions: Measuring deliberative quality. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 32, 1 (09 2015), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqv033 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/dsh/article-pdf/32/1/141/11046544/fqv033.pdf

[13]

Christopher Hidey and Kathleen R. McKeown. 2018. Persuasive Influence Detection: The Role of Argument Sequencing. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), the 30th innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-18), and the 8th AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI-18), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 2-7, 2018, Sheila A. McIlraith and Kilian Q. Weinberger (Eds.). AAAI Press, 5173–5180. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI18/paper/view/17077

[14]

Kuo-Yu Huang, Hen-Hsen Huang, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2021. HARGAN: Heterogeneous Argument Attention Network for Persuasiveness Prediction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35. 13045–13054.

[15]

Lu Ji, Zhongyu Wei, Xiangkun Hu, Yang Liu, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2018. Incorporating Argument-Level Interactions for Persuasion Comments Evaluation using Co-attention Model. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, 3703–3714. https://aclanthology.org/C18-1314

[16]

Yohan Jo, Shivani Poddar, Byungsoo Jeon, Qinlan Shen, Carolyn P. Rose, and Graham Neubig. 2018. Attentive Interaction Model: Modeling Changes in View in Argumentation. arxiv:1804.00065 [cs.CL]

[17]

Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification. CoRR abs/1408.5882(2014). arxiv:1408.5882http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.5882

[18]

Beata Beigman Klebanov, Christian Stab, Jill Burstein, Yi Song, Binod Gyawali, and Iryna Gurevych. 2016. Argumentation: Content, structure, and relationship with essay quality. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Argument Mining (ArgMining2016). 70–75.

[19]

John Lawrence and Chris Reed. 2019. Argument Mining: A Survey. Computational Linguistics 45, 4 (Dec. 2019), 765–818. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00364

Digital Library

[20]

Ran Levy, Yonatan Bilu, Daniel Hershcovich, Ehud Aharoni, and Noam Slonim. 2014. Context Dependent Claim Detection. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers. Dublin City University and Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland, 1489–1500. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C14-1141

[21]

Jialu Li, Esin Durmus, and Claire Cardie. 2020. Exploring the Role of Argument Structure in Online Debate Persuasion. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 8905–8912. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.716

[22]

Marco Lippi and Paolo Torroni. 2016. MARGOT: A web server for argumentation mining. Expert Systems with Applications 65 (2016), 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.050

Digital Library

[23]

Bing Liu. 2012. Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Synthesis lectures on human language technologies 5, 1(2012), 1–167.

[24]

Yang Liu. 2019. Fine-tune BERT for Extractive Summarization. arxiv:1903.10318 [cs.CL]

[25]

Kelvin Luu, Chenhao Tan, and Noah A. Smith. 2019. Measuring Online Debaters’ Persuasive Skill from Text over Time. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 7 (09 2019), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00281 arXiv:https://direct.mit.edu/tacl/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/tacl_a_00281/1879631/tacl_a_00281.pdf

[26]

Stefano Menini, Elena Cabrio, Sara Tonelli, and Serena Villata. 2018. Never Retreat, Never Retract: Argumentation Analysis for Political Speeches. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 32, 1 (Apr. 2018). https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/11920

[27]

Gaku Morio, Hiroaki Ozaki, Terufumi Morishita, Yuta Koreeda, and Kohsuke Yanai. 2020. Towards Better Non-Tree Argument Mining: Proposition-Level Biaffine Parsing with Task-Specific Parameterization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 3259–3266. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.298

[28]

Huy Nguyen and Diane Litman. 2015. Extracting Argument and Domain Words for Identifying Argument Components in Texts. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining. Association for Computational Linguistics, Denver, CO, 22–28. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W15-0503

[29]

Huy Nguyen and Diane Litman. 2018. Argument mining for improving the automated scoring of persuasive essays. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 32.

[30]

Vlad Niculae, Joonsuk Park, and Claire Cardie. 2017. Argument Mining with Structured SVMs and RNNs. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada, 985–995. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-1091

[31]

Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 1532–1543. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D14-1162

[32]

Isaac Persing and Vincent Ng. 2015. Modeling argument strength in student essays. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). 543–552.

[33]

Peter Potash and Anna Rumshisky. 2017. Towards debate automation: a recurrent model for predicting debate winners. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2465–2475.

[34]

Ruty Rinott, Lena Dankin, Carlos Alzate Perez, Mitesh M. Khapra, Ehud Aharoni, and Noam Slonim. 2015. Show Me Your Evidence - an Automatic Method for Context Dependent Evidence Detection. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Lisbon, Portugal, 440–450. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D15-1050

[35]

Christian Stab and Iryna Gurevych. 2017. Parsing Argumentation Structures in Persuasive Essays. Computational Linguistics 43, 3 (Sept. 2017), 619–659. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00295

[36]

Chenhao Tan, Vlad Niculae, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Lillian Lee. 2016. Winning Arguments: Interaction Dynamics and Persuasion Strategies in Good-faith Online Discussions. CoRR abs/1602.01103(2016). arxiv:1602.01103http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01103

[37]

Henning Wachsmuth, Khalid Al Khatib, and Benno Stein. 2016. Using Argument Mining to Assess the Argumentation Quality of Essays. In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers. 1680–1691.

[38]

Xuewei Wang, Weiyan Shi, Richard Kim, Yoojung Oh, Sijia Yang, Jingwen Zhang, and Zhou Yu. 2019. Persuasion for Good: Towards a Personalized Persuasive Dialogue System for Social Good. CoRR abs/1906.06725(2019). arXiv:1906.06725http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.06725

[39]

Jichuan Zeng, Jing Li, Yulan He, Cuiyun Gao, Michael Lyu, and Irwin King. 2020. What Changed Your Mind: The Roles of Dynamic Topics and Discourse in Argumentation Process. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 (Taipei, Taiwan) (WWW ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1502–1513. https://doi.org/10.1145/3366423.3380223

Digital Library

[40]

Justine Zhang, Ravi Kumar, Sujith Ravi, and Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil. 2016. Conversational flow in Oxford-style debates. CoRR abs/1604.03114(2016). arxiv:1604.03114http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03114

Cited By

Ruiz-Dolz RHeras SGarcía-Fornes A(2025)An introduction to computational argumentation research from a human argumentation perspectiveAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-025-09692-x39:1Online publication date: 13-Feb-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10458-025-09692-x

Index Terms

Modeling Inter Round Attack of Online Debaters for Winner Prediction

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Impossible Differential Attack on Reduced-Round TWINE
Information Security and Cryptology -- ICISC 2013
Abstract
TWINE, proposed at the ECRYPT Workshop on Lightweight Cryptography in 2011, is a 64-bit lightweight block cipher consisting of 36 rounds with 80-bit or 128-bit keys. In this paper, we give impossible differential attacks on both versions of the ...
Collision attack and pseudorandomness of reduced-round camellia
SAC'04: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Selected Areas in Cryptography

Camellia is the final winner of 128-bit block cipher in NESSIE. In this paper, we construct some efficient distinguishers between 4-round Camellia and random permutation of the blocks space. By using collision-searching techniques, the distinguishers ...
Square attack on reduced-round Zodiac cipher
ISPEC'08: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Information security practice and experience

Zodiac is a block cipher with 128-bit blocks and designed for the Korean firm SoftForum in 2000. This paper discusses the security of Zodiac against the Square attack. We first construct two 8-round distinguishers to build a basic Square attack against ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

WWW '22: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022

April 2022

3764 pages

ISBN:9781450390965

DOI:10.1145/3485447

Editors:
Frédérique Laforest
INSA Lyon, France
,
Raphaël Troncy
EURECOM, France
,
Elena Simperl
King’s College London, UK
,
Deepak Agarwal
Pinterest, USA
,
Aristides Gionis
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
,
Ivan Herman
W3C / retired
,
Lionel Médini
Université Lyon 1, France

Copyright © 2022 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGWEB: ACM Special Interest Group on Hypertext, Hypermedia, and Web

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 25 April 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan

Conference

WWW '22

Sponsor:

SIGWEB

WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022

April 25 - 29, 2022

Virtual Event, Lyon, France

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
250
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)32
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

Reflects downloads up to 08 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Ruiz-Dolz RHeras SGarcía-Fornes A(2025)An introduction to computational argumentation research from a human argumentation perspectiveAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-025-09692-x39:1Online publication date: 13-Feb-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10458-025-09692-x

View Options

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten