GenAI4ELab/papercli-papers huggingface dataset:
Toward Reasonable Parrots: Why Large Language Models Should Argue with Us by Design
Authors: Elena Musi; Nadin Kökciyan; Khalid Al Khatib; Davide Ceolin; Emmanuelle Dietz; Klara Maximiliane Gutekunst; Annette Hautli-Janisz; Cristián Santibáñez; Jodi Schneider; Jonas Scholz; Cor Steging; Jacky Visser; Henning Wachsmuth
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: In this position paper, we advocate for the development of conversational technology that is inherently designed to support and facilitate argumentative processes. We argue that, at present, large language models (LLMs) are inadequate for this purpose, and we propose an ideal technology design aimed at enhancing argumentative skills. This involves re-framing LLMs as tools to exercise our critical thinking skills rather than replacing them. We introduce the concept of reasonable parrots that embody the fundamental principles of relevance, responsibility, and freedom, and that interact through argumentative dialogical moves. These principles and moves arise out of millennia of work in argumentation theory and should serve as the starting point for LLM-based technology that incorporates basic principles of argumentation.
Retrieving Argument Graphs Using Vision Transformers
Authors: Kilian Bartz; Mirko Lenz; Ralph Bergmann
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: Through manual annotation or automated argument mining processes, arguments can be represented not only as text, but also in structured formats like graphs. When searching for relevant arguments, this additional information about the relationship between their elementary units allows for the formulation of fine-grained structural constraints by using graphs as queries. Then, a retrieval can be performed by computing the similarity between the query and all available arguments. Previous works employed Graph Edit Distance (GED) algorithms such as A* search to compute mappings between nodes and edges for determining the similarity, which is rather expensive. In this paper, we propose an alternative based on Vision Transformers where arguments are rendered as images to obtain dense embeddings. We propose multiple space-filling visualizations and evaluate the retrieval performance of the vision-based approach against an existing A* search-based method. We find that our technique runs orders of magnitude faster than A* search and scales well on larger argument graphs while achieving competitive results.
Old but Gold: LLM-Based Features and Shallow Learning Methods for Fine-Grained Controversy Analysis in YouTube Comments
Authors: Davide Bassi; Erik Bran Marino; Renata Vieira; Martin Pereira
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: Online discussions can either bridge differences through constructive dialogue or amplify divisions through destructive interactions. paper proposes a computational approach to analyze dialogical relation patterns in YouTube comments, offering a fine-grained framework for controversy detection, enabling also analysis of individual contributions. experiments demonstrate that shallow learning methods, when equipped with these theoretically-grounded features, consistently outperform more complex language models in characterizing discourse quality at both comment-pair and conversation-chain levels.studies confirm that divisive rhetorical techniques serve as strong predictors of destructive communication patterns. work advances understanding of how communicative choices shape online discourse, moving beyond engagement metrics toward nuanced examination of constructive versus destructive dialogue patterns.
Multi-Agent LLM Debate Unveils the Premise Left Unsaid
Authors: Harvey Bonmu Ku; Jeongyeol Shin; Hyoun Jun Lee; Seonok Na; Insu Jeon
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: Implicit premise is central to argumentative coherence and faithfulness, yet remain elusive in traditional single-pass computational models. We introduce a multi-agent framework that casts implicit premise recovery as a dialogic reasoning task between two LLM agents. Through structured rounds of debate, agents critically evaluate competing premises and converge on the most contextually appropriate interpretation. Evaluated on a controlled binary classification benchmark for premise selection, our approach achieves state-of-the-art accuracy, outperforming both neural baselines and single-agent LLMs. We find that accuracy gains stem not from repeated generation, but from agents refining their predictions in response to opposing views. Moreover, we show that forcing models to defend assigned stances degrades performance—engendering rhetorical rigidity to flawed reasoning. These results underscore the value of interactive debate in revealing pragmatic components of argument structure.
Leveraging Graph Structural Knowledge to Improve Argument Relation Prediction in Political Debates
Authors: Deborah Dore; Stefano Faralli; Serena Villata
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: Argument Mining (AM) aims at detecting argumentation structures (i.e., premises and claims linked by attack and support relations) in text. A natural application domain is political debates, where uncovering the hidden dynamics of a politician’s argumentation strategies can help the public to identify fallacious and propagandist arguments. Despite the few approaches proposed in the literature to apply AM to political debates, this application scenario is still challenging, and, more precisely, concerning the task of predicting the relation holding between two argument components. Most of AM relation prediction approaches only consider the textual content of the argument component to identify and classify the argumentative relation holding among them (i.e., support, attack), and they mostly ignore the structural knowledge that arises from the overall argumentation graph. In this paper, we propose to address the relation prediction task in AM by combining the structural knowledge provided by a Knowledge Graph Embedding Model with the contextual knowledge provided by a fine-tuned Language Model. Our experimental setting is grounded on a standard AM benchmark of televised political debates of the US presidential campaigns from 1960 to 2020. Our extensive experimental setting demonstrates that integrating these two distinct forms of knowledge (i.e., the textual content of the argument component and the structural knowledge of the argumentation graph) leads to novel pathways that outperform existing approaches in the literature on this benchmark and enhance the accuracy of the predictions.
On Integrating LLMs Into an Argument Annotation Workflow
Authors: Robin Schaefer
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: Given the recent success of LLMs across different NLP tasks, their usability for data annotation has become a promising area of research. In this work, we investigate to what extent LLMs can be used as annotators for argument components and their semantic types in German tweets through a series of experiments combining different models and prompt configurations. Each prompt is constructed from modular components, such as class definitions or contextual information. Our results suggest that LLMs can indeed perform argument annotation, particularly of semantic argument types, if provided with precise class definitions. However, a fine-tuned BERT baseline remains a strong contender, often matching or exceeding LLM performance. These findings highlight the importance of considering not only model performance, but also ecological and financial costs when defining an annotation workflow.
Practical Solutions to Practical Problems in Developing Argument Mining Systems
Authors: Debela Gemechu; Ramon Ruiz-Dolz; John Lawrence; Chris Reed
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: The Open Argument Mining Framework (oAMF) addresses key challenges in argument mining research which still persist despite the field’s impressive growth. Researchers often face difficulties with cross-system comparisons, incompatible representation languages, and limited access to reusable tools. The oAMF introduces a standardised yet flexible architecture that enables seamless component benchmarking, rapid pipeline prototyping using elements from diverse research traditions, and unified evaluation methodologies that preserve theoretical compatibility. By reducing technical overhead, the framework allows researchers to focus on advancing core argument mining capabilities rather than reimplementing infrastructure, fostering greater collaboration at a time when computational reasoning is increasingly vital in the era of large language models.
Argumentative Analysis of Legal Rulings: A Structured Framework Using Bobbitt’s Typology
Authors: Carlotta Giacchetta; Raffaella Bernardi; Barbara Montini; Jacopo Staiano; Serena Tomasi
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: Legal reasoning remains one of the most complex and nuanced domains for AI, with current tools often lacking transparency and domain adaptability. While recent advances in large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities for legal analysis, their ability to structure and interpret judicial argumentation remains unexplored. address this gap by proposing a structured framework for AI-assisted legal reasoning, centered on argumentative analysis. this work, we use GPT-4o for discourse-level and semantic analysis to identify argumentative units and classify them according to Philippe Bobbitt’s six constitutional modalities of legal reasoning.apply this framework to legal rulings from the Italian Court of Cassation.experimental findings indicate that LLM-based tools can effectively augment and streamline legal practice, by e.g. preprocessing the legal texts under scrutiny; still, the limited performance of the state-of-the-art generative model tested indicates significant room for progress in human-AI collaboration in the legal domain.
Aspect-Based Opinion Summarization with Argumentation Schemes
Authors: Wendi Zhou; Ameer Saadat-Yazdi; Nadin Kökciyan
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: Reviews are valuable resources for customers making purchase decisions in online shopping. However, it is impractical for customers to go over the vast number of reviews and manually conclude the prominent opinions, which prompts the need for automated opinion summarization systems. Previous approaches, either extractive or abstractive, face challenges in automatically producing grounded aspect-centric summaries. In this paper, we propose a novel summarization system that not only captures predominant opinions from an aspect perspective with supporting evidence, but also adapts to varying domains without relying on a pre-defined set of aspects. Our proposed framework, ASESUM, summarizes viewpoints relevant to the critical aspects of a product by extracting aspect-centric arguments and measuring their salience and validity. We conduct experiments on a real-world dataset to demonstrate the superiority of our approach in capturing diverse perspectives of the original reviews compared to new and existing methods.
Investigating Subjective Factors of Argument Strength: Storytelling, Emotions, and Hedging
Authors: Carlotta Quensel; Neele Falk; Gabriella Lapesa
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: In assessing argument strength, the notions of what makes a good argument are manifold. With the broader trend towards treating subjectivity as an asset and not a problem in NLP, new dimensions of argument quality are studied. Although studies on individual subjective features like personal stories exist, there is a lack of large-scale analyses of the relation between these features and argument strength. To address this gap, we conduct regression analysis to quantify the impact of subjective factors – emotions, storytelling, and hedging - on two standard datasets annotated for objective argument quality and subjective persuasion. As such, our contribution is twofold: at the level of contributed resources, as there are no datasets annotated with all studied dimensions, this work compares and evaluates automated annotation methods for each subjective feature. At the level of novel insights, our regression analysis uncovers different patterns of impact of subjective features on the two facets of argument strength encoded in the datasets. Our results show that storytelling and hedging have contrasting effects on objective and subjective argument quality, while the influence of emotions depends on their rhetoric utilization rather than the domain.
DebArgVis: An Interactive Visualisation Tool for Exploring Argumentative Dynamics in Debate
Authors: Martin Gruber; Zlata Kikteva; Ignaz Rutter; Annette Hautli-Janisz
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: Television debates play a key role in shaping public opinion, however, the rapid exchange of viewpoints in these settings often makes it difficult to perceive the underlying nature of the discussion. While there exist several debate visualisation techniques, to the best of our knowledge, none of them emphasise the argumentative dynamics in particular. With DebArgVis, we present a new interactive debate visualisation tool that leverages data annotated with argumentation structures to demonstrate how speaker interactions unfold over time, enabling users to deepen their comprehension of the debate.
Automatic Identification and Naming of Overlapping and Topic-specific Argumentation Frames
Authors: Carolin Schindler; Annalena Aicher; Niklas Rach; Wolfgang Minker
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: Being aware of frames, i.e., the aspect-based grouping of arguments, is crucial in applications that build upon a corpus of arguments, allowing, among others, biases and filter bubbles to be mitigated. However, manually identifying and naming these frames can be time-consuming and therefore not feasible for larger datasets. Within this work, we present a sequential three-step pipeline for automating this task in a data-driven manner. After embedding the arguments, we apply clustering algorithms for identifying the frames and subsequently, utilize methods from the field of cluster labeling to name the frames. The proposed approach is tailored towards the requirements of practical applications where arguments may not be easily split into their argumentative units and hence can belong to more than one frame. Performing a component-wise evaluation, we determine the best-performing configuration of the pipeline. Our results indicate that frames should be identified by performing overlapping and not exclusive clustering and the naming of frames can be accomplished best by extracting aspect terms and weighting them with c-TF-IDF.
A Simple but Effective Context Retrieval for Sequential Sentence Classification in Long Legal Documents
Authors: Anas Belfathi; Nicolas Hernandez; Laura Monceaux; Richard Dufour
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: Sequential sentence classification extends traditional classification, especially useful when dealing with long documents. However, state-of-the-art approaches face two major challenges: pre-trained language models struggle with input-length constraints, while proposed hierarchical models often introduce irrelevant content. To address these limitations, we propose a simple and effective document-level retrieval approach that extracts only the most relevant context. Specifically, we introduce two heuristic strategies: Sequential, which captures local information, and Selective, which retrieves the semantically similar sentences. Experiments on legal domain datasets show that both heuristics lead to consistent improvements over the baseline, with an average increase of ∼5.5 weighted-F1 points. Sequential heuristics outperform hierarchical models on two out of three datasets, with gains of up to ∼1.5, demonstrating the benefits of targeted context.
Stance-aware Definition Generation for Argumentative Texts
Authors: Natalia Evgrafova; Loic De Langhe; Véronique Hoste; Els Lefever
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: Definition generation models trained on dictionary data are generally expected to produce neutral and unbiased output while capturing the contextual nuances. However, previous studies have shown that generated definitions can inherit biases from both the underlying models and the input context. This paper examines the extent to which stance-related bias in argumentative data influences the generated definitions. In particular, we train a model on a slang-based dictionary to explore the feasibility of generating persuasive definitions that concisely reflect opposing parties’ understandings of contested terms. Through this study, we provide new insights into bias propagation in definition generation and its implications for definition generation applications and argument mining.
Reproducing the Argument Quality Prediction of Project Debater
Authors: Ines Zelch; Matthias Hagen; Benno Stein; Johannes Kiesel
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: A crucial task when analyzing arguments is to determine their quality. Especially when you have to choose from a large number of suitable arguments, the determination of a reliable argument quality value is of great benefit. Probably the best-known model for determining such an argument quality value was developed in IBM’s Project Debater and made available to the research community free of charge via an API. In fact, the model was never open and the API is no longer available. In this paper, IBM’s model is reproduced using the freely available training data and the description in the corresponding publication. Our reproduction achieves similar results on the test data as described in the original publication. Further, the predicted quality scores of reproduction and original show a very high correlation (Pearson’s r=0.9) on external data.
Reasoning Under Distress: Mining Claims and Evidence in Mental Health Narratives
Authors: Jannis Köckritz; Bahar İlgen; Georges Hattab
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: This paper explores the application of argument mining to mental health narratives using zero‐shot transfer learning. We fine‐tune a BERT‐based sentence classifier on ~15k essays from the Persuade dataset—achieving 69.1% macro‐F1 on its test set—and apply it without domain adaptation to the CAMS dataset, which consists of anonymized mental health–related Reddit posts. On a manually annotated gold‐standard set of 150 CAMS sentences, our model attains 54.7% accuracy and 48.9% macro‐F1, with evidence detection (F1 = 63.4%) transferring more effectively than claim identification (F1 = 32.0%). Analysis across expert‐annotated causal factors of distress shows that personal narratives heavily favor experiential evidence (65–77% of sentences) compared to academic writing. The prevalence of evidence sentences, many of which appear to be grounded in lived experiences, such as descriptions of emotional states or personal events, suggests that personal narratives favor descriptive recollection over formal, argumentative reasoning. These findings underscore the unique challenges of argument mining in affective contexts and offer recommendations for enhancing argument mining tools within clinical and digital mental health support systems.
Multi-Class versus Means-End: Assessing Classification Approaches for Argument Patterns
Authors: Maximilian Heinrich; Khalid Al Khatib; Benno Stein
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: In the study of argumentation, the schemes introduced by Walton et al. (2008) represent a significant advancement in understanding and analyzing the structure and function of arguments. Walton’s framework is particularly valuable for computational reasoning, as it facilitates the identification of argument patterns and the reconstruction of enthymemes. Despite its practical utility, automatically identifying these schemes remains a challenging problem. To aid human annotators, Visser et al. (2021) developed a decision tree for scheme classification. Building on this foundation, we propose a means-end approach to argument scheme classification that systematically leverages expert knowledge—encoded in a decision tree—to guide language models through a complex classification task. We assess the effectiveness of the means-end approach by conducting a comprehensive comparison with a standard multi-class approach across two datasets, applying both prompting and supervised learning methods to each approach. Our results indicate that the means-end approach, when combined with supervised learning, achieves scores only slightly lower than those of the multi-class classification approach. At the same time, the means-end approach enhances explainability by identifying the specific steps in the decision tree that pose the greatest challenges for each scheme—offering valuable insights for refining the overall means-end classification process.
From Debates to Diplomacy: Argument Mining Across Political Registers
Authors: Maria Poiaganova; Manfred Stede
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: This paper addresses the problem of cross-register generalization in argument mining within political discourse. We examine whether models trained on adversarial, spontaneous U.S. presidential debates can generalize to the more diplomatic and prepared register of UN Security Council (UNSC) speeches. To this end, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation across four core argument mining tasks. Our experiments show that the tasks of detecting and classifying argumentative units transfer well across registers, while identifying and labeling argumentative relations remains notably challenging, likely due to register-specific differences in how argumentative relations are structured and expressed. As part of this work, we introduce ArgUNSC, a new corpus of 144 UNSC speeches manually annotated with claims, premises, and their argumentative links. It provides a resource for future in- and cross-domain studies and novel research directions at the intersection of argument mining and political science.
Storytelling in Argumentative Discussions: Exploring the Use of Narratives in ChangeMyView
Authors: Sara Nabhani; Khalid Al Khatib; Federico Pianzola; Malvina Nissim
Venue: ACL 2025 (Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop)

Abstract: Psychological research has long suggested that storytelling can shape beliefs and behaviors by fostering emotional engagement and narrative transportation. However, it remains unclear whether these effects extend to online argumentative discourse. In this paper, we examine the role of narrative in real-world argumentation using discussions from the ChangeMyView subreddit. Leveraging an automatic story detection model, we analyze how narrative use varies across persuasive comments, user types, discussion outcomes, and the kinds of change being sought. While narrative appears more frequently in some contexts, it is not consistently linked to successful persuasion. Notably, highly persuasive users tend to use narrative less, and storytelling does not demonstrate increased effectiveness for any specific type of persuasive goals. These findings suggest that narrative may play a limited and context-dependent role in online discussions, highlighting the need for computational models of argumentation to account for rhetorical diversity.