Argumentation Quality Assessment

Theory vs. Practice

verfasst von

Henning Wachsmuth, Nona Naderi, Ivan Habernal, Yufang Hou, Graeme Hirst, Iryna Gurevych, Benno Stein

Abstract

Argumentation quality is viewed differently in argumentation theory and in practical assessment approaches. This paper studies to what extent the views match empirically. We find that most observations on quality phrased spontaneously are in fact adequately represented by theory. Even more, relative comparisons of arguments in practice correlate with absolute quality ratings based on theory. Our results clarify how the two views can learn from each other.

Externe Organisation(en)

Bauhaus-Universität Weimar
University of Toronto
Technische Universität Darmstadt
IBM Research Europe

Typ

Aufsatz in Konferenzband

Seiten

250-255

Anzahl der Seiten

6

Publikationsdatum

07.2017

Publikationsstatus

Veröffentlicht

Peer-reviewed

Ja

ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete

Sprache und Linguistik, Artificial intelligence, Software, Linguistik und Sprache

Elektronische Version(en)

https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-2039 (Zugang: Offen)