In this position paper, we advocate for the development of conversational technology that is inherently designed to support and facilitate argumentative processes. We argue that, at present, large language models (LLMs) are inadequate for this purpose, and we propose an ideal technology design aimed at enhancing argumentative skills. This involves re-framing LLMs as tools to exercise our critical thinking skills rather than replacing them. We introduce the concept of reasonable parrots that embody the fundamental principles of relevance, responsibility, and freedom, and that interact through argumentative dialogical moves. These principles and moves arise out of millennia of work in argumentation theory and should serve as the starting point for LLM-based technology that incorporates basic principles of argumentation.

Reviews are valuable resources for customers making purchase decisions in online shopping. However, it is impractical for customers to go over the vast number of reviews and manually conclude the prominent opinions, which prompts the need for automated opinion summarization systems. Previous approaches, either extractive or abstractive, face challenges in automatically producing grounded aspect-centric summaries. In this paper, we propose a novel summarization system that not only captures predominant opinions from an aspect perspective with supporting evidence, but also adapts to varying domains without relying on a pre-defined set of aspects. Our proposed framework, ASESUM, summarizes viewpoints relevant to the critical aspects of a product by extracting aspect-centric arguments and measuring their salience and validity. We conduct experiments on a real-world dataset to demonstrate the superiority of our approach in capturing diverse perspectives of the original reviews compared to new and existing methods.

Critical questions are essential resources to provoke critical thinking when encountering an argumentative text. We present our system for the Critical Questions Generation (CQs-Gen) Shared Task at ArgMining 2025. Our approach leverages large language models (LLMs) with chain-of-thought prompting to generate critical questions guided by Walton’s argumentation schemes. For each input intervention, we conversationally prompt LLMs to instantiate the corresponding argument scheme template to first obtain structured arguments, and then generate relevant critical questions. Following this, we rank all the available critical questions by prompting LLMs to select the top 3 most helpful questions based on the original intervention text. This combination of structured argumentation theory and step-by-step reasoning enables the generation of contextually relevant and diverse critical questions. Our pipeline achieves competitive performance in the final test set, showing its potential to foster critical thinking given argumentative text and detect missing or uninformed claims.

In argumentation theory, argument schemes are a characterisation of stereotypical patterns of inference. There has been little work done to develop computational approaches to identify these schemes in natural language. Moreover, advancements in recognizing textual entailment lack a standardized definition of inference, which makes it challenging to compare methods trained on different datasets and rely on the generalisability of their results. In this work, we propose a rigorous approach to align entailment recognition with argumentation theory. Wagemans’ Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA), a taxonomy of argument schemes, provides the appropriate framework to unify these two fields. To operationalise the theoretical model, we introduce a tool to assist humans in annotating arguments according to the PTA. Beyond providing insights into non-expert annotator training, we present Kialo-PTA24, the first multi-topic dataset for the PTA. Finally, we benchmark the performance of pre-trained language models on various aspects of argument analysis. Our experiments show that the task of argument canonicalisation poses a significant challenge for state-of-the-art models, suggesting an inability to represent argumentative reasoning and a direction for future investigation.

Argument mining seeks to extract arguments and their structure from unstructured texts. Identifying relations between arguments (such as attack, support, and neutral) is a challenging task because two arguments may be related to each other via implicit inferences. This task often requires external commonsense knowledge to discover how one argument relates to another. State-of-the-art methods, however, rely on pre-defined knowledge graphs, and thus might not cover target argument pairs well. We introduce a new generative neuro-symbolic approach to finding inference chains that connect the argument pairs by making use of the Commonsense Transformer (COMET). We evaluate our approach on three datasets for both the two-label (attack/support) and three-label (attack/support/neutral) tasks. Our approach significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art, by 2-5% in F1 score, on all three datasets.

The ArgMining 2022 Shared Task is concerned with predicting the validity and novelty of an inference for a given premise and conclusion pair. We propose two feed-forward network based models (KEViN1 and KEViN2), which combine features generated from several pretrained transformers and the WikiData knowledge graph. The transformers are used to predict entailment and semantic similarity, while WikiData is used to provide a semantic measure between concepts in the premise-conclusion pair. Our proposed models show significant improvement over RoBERTa, with KEViN1 outperforming KEViN2 and obtaining second rank on both subtasks (A and B) of the ArgMining 2022 Shared Task.