Papers › Assessing Convincingness of Arguments in Online Debates with Limited Number of Features
Assessing Convincingness of Arguments in Online Debates with Limited Number of Features
Lisa Andreevna Chalaguine, Claudia Schulz
We propose a new method in the field of argument analysis in social media to determining convincingness of arguments in online debates, following previous research by Habernal and Gurevych (2016). Rather than using argument specific feature values, we measure feature values relative to the average value in the debate, allowing us to determine argument convincingness with fewer features (between 5 and 35) than normally used for natural language processing tasks. We use a simple forward-feeding neural network for this task and achieve an accuracy of 0.77 which is comparable to the accuracy obtained using 64k features and a support vector machine by Habernal and Gurevych.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections