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(ation) mining (AM) is the automated process of identification and extraction of argumentative structures in natural language. This field has seen rapid advancements, offering powerful tools to analyze and interpret complex and large discourse in diverse domains (political debates, medical reports, etc.). In this paper we introduce an AM-boosted version of BCause, a large-scale deliberation platform.The system enables the extraction and analysis of arguments from online discussions in the context of deliberative democracy, which aims to enhance the understanding and accessibility of structured argumentation in large-scale deliberation processes.

The potential effectiveness of counterspeech as a hate speech mitigation strategy is attracting increasing interest in the NLG research community, particularly towards the task of automatically producing it. However, automatically generated responses often lack the argumentative richness which characterises expert-produced counterspeech. In this work, we focus on two aspects of counterspeech generation to produce more cogent responses. First, by investigating the tension between helpfulness and harmlessness of LLMs, we test whether the presence of safety guardrails hinders the quality of the generations. Secondly, we assess whether attacking a specific component of the hate speech results in a more effective argumentative strategy to fight online hate. By conducting an extensive human and automatic evaluation, we show how the presence of safety guardrails can be detrimental also to a task that inherently aims at fostering positive social interactions. Moreover, our results show that attacking a specific component of the hate speech, and in particular its implicit negative stereotype and its hateful parts, leads to higher-quality generations.

Explaining Artificial Intelligence (AI) decisions is a major challenge nowadays in AI, in particular when applied to sensitive scenarios like medicine and law. However, the need to explain the rationale behind decisions is a main issues also for human-based deliberation as it is important to justify why a certain decision has been taken. Resident medical doctors for instance are required not only to provide a (possibly correct) diagnosis, but also to explain how they reached a certain conclusion. Developing new tools to aid residents to train their explanation skills is therefore a central objective of AI in education. In this paper, we follow this direction, and we present, to the best of our knowledge, the first multilingual dataset for Medical Question Answering where correct and incorrect diagnoses for a clinical case are enriched with a natural language explanation written by doctors. These explanations have been manually annotated with argument components (i.e., premise, claim) and argument relations (i.e., attack, support). The Multilingual CasiMedicos-arg dataset consists of 558 clinical cases (English, Spanish, French, Italian) with explanations, where we annotated 5021 claims, 2313 premises, 2431 support relations, and 1106 attack relations. We conclude by showing how competitive baselines perform over this challenging dataset for the argument mining task.