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/

Fallacies are arguments that employ faulty reasoning. Given their persuasive and seemingly valid nature, fallacious arguments are often used in political debates. Employing these misleading arguments in politics can have detrimental consequences for society, since they can lead to inaccurate conclusions and invalid inferences from the public opinion and the policymakers. Automatically detecting and classifying fallacious arguments represents therefore a crucial challenge to limit the spread of misleading or manipulative claims and promote a more informed and healthier political discourse. Our contribution to address this challenging task is twofold. First, we extend the ElecDeb60To16 dataset of U.S. presidential debates annotated with fallacious arguments, by incorporating the most recent Trump-Biden presidential debate. We include updated token-level annotations, incorporating argumentative components (i.e., claims and premises), the relations between these components (i.e., support and attack), and six categories of fallacious arguments (i.e., Ad Hominem, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, False Cause, Slippery Slope, and Slogans). Second, we perform the twofold task of fallacious argument detection and classification by defining neural network architectures based on Transformers models, combining text, argumentative features, and engineered features. Our results show the advantages of complementing transformer-generated text representations with non-text features.

This work describes the process of creating a corpus of Twitter conversations annotated for the presence of counterspeech in response to toxic speech related to axes of discrimination linked to sexism, racism and homophobia. The main novelty is an annotated dataset comprising relevant tweets in their context of occurrence. The corpus is made up of tweets and responses captured by different profiles replying to discriminatory content or objectionably couched news. An annotation scheme was created to make explicit the knowledge on the dimensions of toxic speech and counterspeech.An analysis of the collected and annotated data and of the IAA that emerged during the annotation process is included. Moreover, we report about preliminary experiments on automatic counterspeech detection, based on supervised automatic learning models trained on the new dataset. The results highlight the fundamental role played by the context in this detection task, confirming our intuitions about the importance to collect tweets in their context of occurrence.