# _VivesDebate_: A New Annotated Multilingual Corpus of Argumentation in a Debate Tournament
## 3 Annotation Methodology
### Segmentation of Debates in Argumentative Discourse Units (ADUs)
Jo pense que es deurien prohibir les festes amb bous ja que impliquen maltractament animal [es deurien prohibir les festes amb bous]\({}_{ADU11}\)  
ja que impliquen maltractament animal]\({}_{ADU2}\)  
(8b) I think bullfights should be banned as they involve animal abuse  
[bullfights should be banned as they involve animal abuse]\({}_{ADU11}\)  
[as they involve animal abuse]\({}_{ADU2}\)  
(9a) [[PERSON] pensa que cos i anima son dues entitats totalment separades]\({}_{ADU11}\)  
(9b) [[PERSON] thinks that body and soul are two totally separate entities]\({}_{ADU11}\)  
In example (8), the ADU already indicates which specific participant uttered this argument in the STANCE and ARGUMENT_NUMBER tags associated, as we describe in more detail below (Section 4.2). Therefore, including this information would be redundant. However, in example (9), it would not be redundant and could be used in further proposals to identify, for instance, arguments from popular, well-known or expert opinion and arguments from witness testimony. With regard to interruptions within the argumentative speech produced by the same participant, the inserted text will be deleted (10), whereas if the interruption is made by a participant of the opposing group, it will be added to another ADU (11). (10a) el que estan fent vostes, i aquest es l'altim punt, es culpabilitzar a la victima [el que estan fent vostes es culpabilitzar a la victima]\({}_{ADU11}\)  
(10b) what you are doing, and this is my last point, is to blame the victim  
[what you are doing is to blame the victim]\({}_{ADU11}\)  
(11a) centenars de dones han firmat un manifest per tal de garantir d'adherir-se a la seua voluntat de ser solidaries, _que passa si es pares d'intencio rebutgen el nen i on quedaria la proteccio del menor en el seu model_, completament garantida per l'estat [centenars de dones han firmat un manifest per tal de garantir d'adherir-se a la seua voluntat de ser solidaries completament garantida per l'estat]\({}_{ADU11}\)  
[que passa si es pares d'intencio rebutgen el nen i on quedaria la proteccio del menor en el seu model]\({}_{ADU2}\)  
(11b) hundreds of women have signed a manifesto to ensure that they adhere to their willingness to be in solidarity, _what happens if the intended parents reject the child and where would the protection of the child be in your model_, fully guaranteed by the state [hundreds of women have signed a manifesto to ensure that they adhere to the to their willingness to be in solidarity fully guaranteed by the state]\({}_{ADU11}\)  
[what happens if the intended parents reject the child and where would the protection of the child be in your model]\({}_{ADU2}\)  
In (11), the initial fragment of text is segmented into two different ADUs. The interruption (in italics) is segmented separately and tagged as ADU2. If an argumentative relation is observed in an interruption made by the same participant, this part of the text will be analysed as a new ADU and, therefore, will not be removed since it establishes the relationship between arguments. Interrogative sentences are analysed as ADUs because they can be used to support an argument (12), except when they are generic questions (13). (12a) [Aixo fa que no necessariament ho valori economicment? ]\({}_{ADU11}\) [No]\({}_{ADU2}\)  
(12b) [Does that necessarily mean that I do not value it economically? ]\({}_{ADU11}\) [No]\({}_{ADU2}\)  
(13a) Que en penses d'aixo? (13b) What do you think about that? It should be noted that tag questions are not annotated as ADUs. In (14) 'oi?/right?' is not tagged as an ADU. (14a) [Aixo fa que no necessariament ho valori economicament]\({}_{ADU11}\) oi? (14a) [Does that necessarily mean that I do not value it economically]\({}_{ADU11}\) right? In the case of emphatic expressions (15), only the main segment is included in the ADU.