Friday, September 8, 2017
|9:00||9:50||Keynote Talk: Practical Argumentation, alias Rhetoric: From Argument Mining to Argument Assessment?
Abstract: Practical argumentation, i.e., argument about what to do, should be treated as a separate sub-domain in argumentation studies, distinct from epistemic argumentation (argumentation about what is true). The former is multi-dimensional, the latter is in principle one-dimensional. Also, the multiple dimensions are typically incommensurable. This makes a step from descriptive argument mining to normative argument assessment problematic. Subjectivity is necessarily and legitimately involved, and scalar computation of argument merit is impossible. On the other hand, normative assessment of practical argumentation, based on criteria, is possible and necessary.
Christian Kock is Professor of Rhetoric at the Department of Media, Cognition and Communication at the University of Copenhagen. He has written numerous articles and books in English and Danish on rhetoric, argumentation, public debate, aesthetics, literature and music. Among the books he has authored or co-authored are “The Theory of Presupposition Failure”, “Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation”, “Contemporary Rhetorical Citizenship”, “Rhetorical Deliberation: Arguing about Doing” (forthcoming).
|Paper Session I|
|9:50||10:10||200K+ Crowdsourced Political Arguments for a New Chilean Constitution [PDF]||Constanza Fierro, Claudio Fuentes, Jorge Pérez and Mauricio Quezada|
|10:10||10:30||Analyzing the Semantic Types of Claims and Premises in an Online Persuasive Forum [PDF]||Christopher Hidey, Elena Musi, Alyssa Hwang, Smaranda Muresan and Kathy McKeown|
|Paper Session II|
|11:00||11:20||Annotation of argument structure in Japanese legal documents [PDF]||Hiroaki Yamada, Simone Teufel and Takenobu Tokunaga|
|11:20||11:40||Improving Claim Stance Classification with Lexical Knowledge Expansion and Context Utilization [PDF]||Roy Bar-Haim, Lilach Edelstein, Charles Jochim and Noam Slonim|
|11:40||12:00||Mining Argumentative Structure from Natural Language text using Automatically Generated Premise-Conclusion Topic Models [PDF]||John Lawrence and Chris Reed|
|12:00||12:20||Building an Argument Search Engine for the Web [PDF]||Henning Wachsmuth, Martin Potthast, Khalid Al Khatib, Yamen Ajjour, Jana Puschmann, Jiani Qu, Jonas Dorsch, Viorel Morari, Janek Bevendorff and Benno Stein|
|Argument Relation Classification Using a Joint Inference Model [PDF]||Yufang Hou and Charles Jochim|
|Projection of Argumentative Corpora from Source to Target Languages [PDF]||Ahmet Aker and Huangpan Zhang|
|Manual Identification of Arguments with Implicit Conclusions Using Semantic Rules for Argument Mining [PDF]||Nancy Green|
|Unsupervised corpus–wide claim detection [PDF]||Ran Levy, Shai Gretz, Benjamin Sznajder, Shay Hummel, Ranit Aharonov and Noam Slonim|
|Using Question-Answering Techniques to Implement a Knowledge-Driven Argument Mining Approach [PDF]||Patrick Saint-Dizier|
|What works and what does not: Classifier and feature analysis for argument mining [PDF]||Ahmet Aker, Alfred Sliwa, Yuan Ma, Ruishen Lui, Mina Ghobadi and Seyedeh Ziyaei|
|Paper Session III|
|16:00||16:20||Unit Segmentation of Argumentative Texts [PDF]||Yamen Ajjour, Wei-Fan Chen, Johannes Kiesel, Henning Wachsmuth and Benno Stein|
|16:20||16:40||Unsupervised Detection of Argumentative Units though Topic Modeling Techniques [PDF]||Alfio Ferrara, Stefano Montanelli and Georgios Petasis|
|16:40||17:00||Using Complex Argumentative Interactions to Reconstruct the Argumentative Structure of Large-Scale Debates [PDF]||John Lawrence and Chris Reed|