Argumentation Quality Assessment: Theory vs. Practice
Henning Wachsmuth, Nona Naderi, Ivan Habernal, Yufang Hou, Graeme Hirst, Iryna Gurevych, Benno Stein
Abstract
Argumentation quality is viewed differently in argumentation theory and in practical assessment approaches. This paper studies to what extent the views match empirically. We find that most observations on quality phrased spontaneously are in fact adequately represented by theory. Even more, relative comparisons of arguments in practice correlate with absolute quality ratings based on theory. Our results clarify how the two views can learn from each other.- Anthology ID:
- P17-2039
- Volume:
- Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers)
- Month:
- July
- Year:
- 2017
- Address:
- Vancouver, Canada
- Editors:
- Regina Barzilay, Min-Yen Kan
- Venue:
- ACL
- SIG:
- Publisher:
- Association for Computational Linguistics
- Note:
- Pages:
- 250–255
- Language:
- URL:
- https://aclanthology.org/P17-2039
- DOI:
- 10.18653/v1/P17-2039
- Cite (ACL):
- Henning Wachsmuth, Nona Naderi, Ivan Habernal, Yufang Hou, Graeme Hirst, Iryna Gurevych, and Benno Stein. 2017. Argumentation Quality Assessment: Theory vs. Practice. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 250–255, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Cite (Informal):
- Argumentation Quality Assessment: Theory vs. Practice (Wachsmuth et al., ACL 2017)
- PDF:
- https://preview.aclanthology.org/teach-a-man-to-fish/P17-2039.pdf