Argumentation exposes individuals to conflicting viewpoints and can help them make more informed decisions based on the pros and cons of a particular issue. While recent studies of argumentation in Natural Language Processing have mainly focused on understanding the effect of various factors of persuasion (i.e. the source, audience, and language style), the impact of exploiting the relationships among controversial topics when predicting argument persuasiveness remains under-explored. In this paper, we model the relatedness among controversial topics utilizing an embedding-based method based on individuals' stances on the topics. We then leverage these topic embedding features and incorporate topic semantics features extracted from the arguments along with the previously studied factors of persuasion. We show that incorporating both types of topic relatedness features explicitly leads to significant improvement in predicting persuasiveness and also helps enhance generalization to rare topics, in a few-shot setting.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.