Flee the Flaw: Annotating the Underlying Logic of Fallacious Arguments Through Templates and Slot-filling
Authors:
Irfan Robbani,
Paul Reisert,
Naoya Inoue,
Surawat Pothong,
Camélia Guerraoui,
Wenzhi Wang,
Shoichi Naito,
Jungmin Choi,
Kentaro Inui
Abstract:
Prior research in computational argumentation has mainly focused on scoring the quality of arguments, with less attention on explicating logical errors. In this work, we introduce four sets of explainable templates for common informal logical fallacies designed to explicate a fallacy's implicit logic. Using our templates, we conduct an annotation study on top of 400 fallacious arguments taken from…
▽ More
Prior research in computational argumentation has mainly focused on scoring the quality of arguments, with less attention on explicating logical errors. In this work, we introduce four sets of explainable templates for common informal logical fallacies designed to explicate a fallacy's implicit logic. Using our templates, we conduct an annotation study on top of 400 fallacious arguments taken from LOGIC dataset and achieve a high agreement score (Krippendorf's alpha of 0.54) and reasonable coverage (0.83). Finally, we conduct an experiment for detecting the structure of fallacies and discover that state-of-the-art language models struggle with detecting fallacy templates (0.47 accuracy). To facilitate research on fallacies, we make our dataset and guidelines publicly available.
△ Less
Submitted 18 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
Teach Me How to Improve My Argumentation Skills: A Survey on Feedback in Argumentation
Authors:
Camélia Guerraoui,
Paul Reisert,
Naoya Inoue,
Farjana Sultana Mim,
Shoichi Naito,
Jungmin Choi,
Irfan Robbani,
Wenzhi Wang,
Kentaro Inui
Abstract:
The use of argumentation in education has been shown to improve critical thinking skills for end-users such as students, and computational models for argumentation have been developed to assist in this process. Although these models are useful for evaluating the quality of an argument, they oftentimes cannot explain why a particular argument is considered poor or not, which makes it difficult to p…
▽ More
The use of argumentation in education has been shown to improve critical thinking skills for end-users such as students, and computational models for argumentation have been developed to assist in this process. Although these models are useful for evaluating the quality of an argument, they oftentimes cannot explain why a particular argument is considered poor or not, which makes it difficult to provide constructive feedback to users to strengthen their critical thinking skills. In this survey, we aim to explore the different dimensions of feedback (Richness, Visualization, Interactivity, and Personalization) provided by the current computational models for argumentation, and the possibility of enhancing the power of explanations of such models, ultimately hel** learners improve their critical thinking skills.
△ Less
Submitted 28 July, 2023;
originally announced July 2023.
