Traditional methods for eliciting people’s opinions face a trade-off between depth and scale: structured surveys enable large-scale data collection but limit respondents’ ability to voice their opinions in their own words, while conversational interviews provide deeper insights but are resource-intensive. This study explores the potential of replacing human interviewers with large language models (LLMs) to conduct scalable conversational interviews. Our goal is to assess the performance of AI Conversational Interviewing and to identify opportunities for improvement in a controlled environment. We conducted a small-scale, in-depth study with university students who were randomly assigned to a conversational interview by either AI or human interviewers, both employing identical questionnaires on political topics. Various quantitative and qualitative measures assessed interviewer adherence to guidelines, response quality, participant engagement, and overall interview efficacy. The findings indicate the viability of AI Conversational Interviewing in producing quality data comparable to traditional methods, with the added benefit of scalability. We publish our data and materials for re-use and present specific recommendations for effective implementation.

This paper investigates the identification of populist rhetoric in text and presents a novel cross-lingual dataset for this task. Our work is based on the definition of populism as a “communication style of political actors that refers to the people” but also includes anti-elitism as another core feature of populism. Accordingly, we annotate references to The People and The Elite in German and English parliamentary debates with a hierarchical scheme. The paper describes our dataset and annotation procedure and reports inter-annotator agreement for this task. Next, we compare and evaluate different transformer-based model architectures on a German dataset and report results for zero-shot learning on a smaller English dataset. We then show that semi-supervised tri-training can improve results in the cross-lingual setting. Our dataset can be used to investigate how political actors talk about The Elite and The People and to study how populist rhetoric is used as a strategic device.

This paper presents a framework for studying second-level political agenda setting in parliamentary debates, based on the selection of policy topics used by political actors to discuss a specific issue on the parliamentary agenda. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic as an agenda item can be contextualised as a health issue or as a civil rights issue, as a matter of macroeconomics or can be discussed in the context of social welfare. Our framework allows us to observe differences regarding how different parties discuss the same agenda item by emphasizing different topical aspects of the item. We apply and evaluate our framework on data from the German Bundestag and discuss the merits and limitations of our approach. In addition, we present a new annotated data set of parliamentary debates, following the coding schema of policy topics developed in the Comparative Agendas Project (CAP), and release models for topic classification in parliamentary debates.

An important skill in critical thinking and argumentation is the ability to spot and recognize fallacies. Fallacious arguments, omnipresent in argumentative discourse, can be deceptive, manipulative, or simply leading to ‘wrong moves’ in a discussion. Despite their importance, argumentation scholars and NLP researchers with focus on argumentation quality have not yet investigated fallacies empirically. The nonexistence of resources dealing with fallacious argumentation calls for scalable approaches to data acquisition and annotation, for which the serious games methodology offers an appealing, yet unexplored, alternative. We present Argotario, a serious game that deals with fallacies in everyday argumentation. Argotario is a multilingual, open-source, platform-independent application with strong educational aspects, accessible at www.argotario.net.