Investigating Subjective Factors of Argument Strength: Storytelling, Emotions, and Hedging
Fuente:
arXiv
Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Publié: |
2025
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866913956243701760 |
|---|---|
| author | Quensel, Carlotta Falk, Neele Lapesa, Gabriella |
| author_facet | Quensel, Carlotta Falk, Neele Lapesa, Gabriella |
| contents | 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. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2507_17409 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Investigating Subjective Factors of Argument Strength: Storytelling, Emotions, and Hedging Quensel, Carlotta Falk, Neele Lapesa, Gabriella Computation and Language 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. |
| title | Investigating Subjective Factors of Argument Strength: Storytelling, Emotions, and Hedging |
| topic | Computation and Language |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17409 |