This paper introduces and evaluates a novel web-based application designed to identify and repair fallacious arguments in political debates. DISPUTool 3.0 offers a comprehensive tool for argumentation analysis of political debate, integrating state-of-the-art natural language processing techniques to mine and classify argument components and relations. DISPUTool 3.0 builds on the ElecDeb60to20 dataset, covering US presidential debates from 1960 to 2020. In this paper, we introduce a novel task which is integrated as a new module in DISPUTool, i.e., the automatic detection and classification of fallacious arguments, and the automatic repairing of such misleading arguments. The goal is to show to the user a tool which not only identifies fallacies in political debates, but it also shows how the argument looks like once the veil of fallacy falls down. An extensive evaluation of the module is addressed employing both automated metrics and human assessments. With the inclusion of this module, DISPUTool 3.0 advances even more user critical thinking in front of the augmenting spread of such nefarious kind of content in political debates and beyond. The tool is publicly available here: https://3ia-demos.inria.fr/disputool/

Argument Mining (AM) aims at detecting argumentation structures (i.e., premises and claims linked by attack and support relations) in text. A natural application domain is political debates, where uncovering the hidden dynamics of a politician’s argumentation strategies can help the public to identify fallacious and propagandist arguments. Despite the few approaches proposed in the literature to apply AM to political debates, this application scenario is still challenging, and, more precisely, concerning the task of predicting the relation holding between two argument components. Most of AM relation prediction approaches only consider the textual content of the argument component to identify and classify the argumentative relation holding among them (i.e., support, attack), and they mostly ignore the structural knowledge that arises from the overall argumentation graph. In this paper, we propose to address the relation prediction task in AM by combining the structural knowledge provided by a Knowledge Graph Embedding Model with the contextual knowledge provided by a fine-tuned Language Model. Our experimental setting is grounded on a standard AM benchmark of televised political debates of the US presidential campaigns from 1960 to 2020. Our extensive experimental setting demonstrates that integrating these two distinct forms of knowledge (i.e., the textual content of the argument component and the structural knowledge of the argumentation graph) leads to novel pathways that outperform existing approaches in the literature on this benchmark and enhance the accuracy of the predictions.