An official website of the United States government
Debate is a process that gives individuals the opportunity to express, and to be exposed to, diverging viewpoints on controversial issues; and the existence of online debating platforms makes it easier for individuals to participate in debates and obtain feedback on their debating skills. But understanding the factors that contribute to a user’s success in debate is complicated: while success depends, in part, on the characteristics of the language they employ, it is also important to account for the degree to which their beliefs and personal traits are compatible with that of the audience. Friendships and previous interactions among users on the platform may further influence success. In this work, we aim to better understand the mechanisms behind success in online debates. In particular, we study the relative effects of debaters’ language, their prior beliefs and personal traits, and their social interactions with other users. We find, perhaps surprisingly, that characteristics of users’ social interactions play the most important role in determining their success in debates although the best predictive performance is achieved by combining social interaction features with features
more »
« less
Persuasion of the Undecided: Language vs. the Listener.
This paper examines the factors that govern persuasion for a priori UNDECIDED versus DECIDED audience members in the context of on-line debates. We separately study two types of influences: linguistic factors — features of the language of the debate itself; and audience factors — features of an audience member encoding demographic information, prior beliefs, and debate platform behavior. In a study of users of a popular debate platform, we find first that different combinations of linguistic features are critical for predicting persuasion outcomes for UNDECIDED versus DECIDED members of the audience. We additionally find that audience factors have more influence on predicting the side (PRO/CON) that persuaded UNDECIDED users than for DECIDED users that flip their stance to the opposing side. Our results emphasize the importance of considering the undecided and decided audiences separately when studying linguistic factors of persuasion.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1741441
- PAR ID:
- 10113371
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Argument Mining
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 167–176
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Public debate forums provide a common platform for exchanging opinions on a topic of interest. While recent studies in natural language processing (NLP) have provided empirical evidence that the language of the debaters and their patterns of interaction play a key role in changing the mind of a reader, research in psychology has shown that prior beliefs can affect our interpretation of an argument and could therefore constitute a competing alternative explanation for resistance to changing one’s stance. To study the actual effect of language use vs. prior beliefs on persuasion, we provide a new dataset and propose a controlled setting that takes into consideration two reader-level factors: political and religious ideology. We find that prior beliefs affected by these reader-level factors play a more important role than language use effects and argue that it is important to account for them in NLP studies of persuasion.more » « less
-
Identifying persuasive speakers in an adversarial environment is a critical task. In a national election, politicians would like to have persuasive speakers campaign on their behalf. When a company faces adverse publicity, they would like to engage persuasive advocates for their position in the presence of adversaries who are critical of them. Debates represent a common platform for these forms of adversarial persuasion. This paper solves two problems: the Debate Outcome Prediction (DOP) problem predicts who wins a debate while the Intensity of Persuasion Prediction (IPP) problem predicts the change in the number of votes before and after a speaker speaks. Though DOP has been previously studied, we are the first to study IPP. Past studies on DOP fail to leverage two important aspects of multimodal data: 1) multiple modalities are often semantically aligned, and 2) different modalities may provide diverse information for prediction. Our M2P2 (Multimodal Persuasion Prediction) framework is the first to use multimodal (acoustic, visual, language) data to solve the IPP problem. To leverage the alignment of different modalities while maintaining the diversity of the cues they provide, M2P2 devises a novel adaptive fusion learning framework which fuses embeddings obtained from two modules -- an alignment module that extracts shared information between modalities and a heterogeneity module that learns the weights of different modalities with guidance from three separately trained unimodal reference models. We test M2P2 on the popular IQ2US dataset designed for DOP. We also introduce a new dataset called QPS (from Qipashuo, a popular Chinese debate TV show) for IPP - we plan to release this dataset when the paper is published. M2P2 significantly outperforms 3 recent baselines on both datasets.more » « less
-
Statistical methods applied to social media posts shed light on the dynamics of online dialogue. For example, users' wording choices predict their persuasiveness and users adopt the language patterns of other dialogue participants. In this paper, we estimate the causal effect of reply tones in debates on linguistic and sentiment changes in subsequent responses. The challenge for this estimation is that a reply's tone and subsequent responses are confounded by the users' ideologies on the debate topic and their emotions. To overcome this challenge, we learn representations of ideology using generative models of text. We study debates from 4Forums.com and compare annotated tones of replying such as emotional versus factual, or reasonable versus attacking. We show that our latent confounder representation reduces bias in ATE estimation. Our results suggest that factual and asserting tones affect dialogue and provide a methodology for estimating causal effects from text.more » « less
-
Abstract The ongoing debate surrounding the impact of the Internet Research Agency’s (IRA) social media campaign during the 2016 U.S. presidential election has largely overshadowed the involvement of other actors. Our analysis brings to light a substantial group of suspended Twitter users, outnumbering the IRA user group by a factor of 60, who align with the ideologies of the IRA campaign. Our study demonstrates that this group of suspended Twitter accounts significantly influenced individuals categorized as undecided or weak supporters, potentially with the aim of swaying their opinions, as indicated by Granger causality.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
