The Unfolding Structure of Arguments in Online Debates: The case of a No-Deal Brexit
In the last decade, political debates have progressively shifted to social media. Rhetorical devices employed by online actors and factions that operate in these debating arenas can be captured and analysed to conduct a statistical reading of societal controversies and their argumentation dynamics. In this paper, we propose a five-step methodology, to extract, categorize and explore the latent argumentation structures of online debates. Using Twitter data about a "no-deal" Brexit, we focus on the expected effects in case of materialisation of this event. First, we extract cause-effect claims contained in tweets using RegEx that exploit verbs related to Creation, Destruction and Causation. Second, we categorise extracted "no-deal" effects using a Structural Topic Model estimated on unigrams and bigrams. Third, we select controversial effect topics and explore within-topic argumentation differences between self-declared partisan user factions. We hence type topics using estimated covariate effects on topic propensities, then, using the topics correlation network, we study the topological structure of the debate to identify coherent topical constellations. Finally, we analyse the debate time dynamics and infer lead/follow relations among factions. Results show that the proposed methodology can be employed to perform a statistical rhetorics analysis of debates, and map the architecture of controversies across time. In particular, the "no-deal" Brexit debate is shown to have an assortative argumentation structure heavily characterized by factional constellations of arguments, as well as by polarized narrative frames invoked through verbs related to Creation and Destruction. Our findings highlight the benefits of implementing a systemic approach to the analysis of debates, which allows the unveiling of topical and factional dependencies between arguments employed in online debates.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Exploring the Role of Argument Structure in Online Debate Persuasion
Online debate forums provide users a platform to express their opinions on controversial topics while being exposed to opinions from diverse set of viewpoints. Existing work in Natural Language Processing (NLP) has shown…
PersuasivenessStakeholder Suite: A Unified AI Framework for Mapping Actors, Topics and Arguments in Public Debates
Public debates surrounding infrastructure and energy projects involve complex networks of stakeholders, arguments, and evolving narratives. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for anticipating controversies and infor…
Identifying Prominent Arguments in Online Debates Using Semantic Textual Similarity
Assessing Convincingness of Arguments in Online Debates with Limited Number of Features
We propose a new method in the field of argument analysis in social media to determining convincingness of arguments in online debates, following previous research by Habernal and Gurevych (2016). Rather than using argum…
Argument MiningSequence Graph Network for Online Debate Analysis
Online debates involve a dynamic exchange of ideas over time, where participants need to actively consider their opponents' arguments, respond with counterarguments, reinforce their own points, and introduce more compell…
Graph Attention