Abstract:In the last decade, political debates have progressively shifted to social media. Rhetorical devices employed by online actors and factions that operate in these debating arenas can be captured and analysed to conduct a statistical reading of societal controversies and their argumentation dynamics. In this paper, we propose a five-step methodology, to extract, categorize and explore the latent argumentation structures of online debates. Using Twitter data about a "no-deal" Brexit, we focus on the expected effects in case of materialisation of this event. First, we extract cause-effect claims contained in tweets using RegEx that exploit verbs related to Creation, Destruction and Causation. Second, we categorise extracted "no-deal" effects using a Structural Topic Model estimated on unigrams and bigrams. Third, we select controversial effect topics and explore within-topic argumentation differences between self-declared partisan user factions. We hence type topics using estimated covariate effects on topic propensities, then, using the topics correlation network, we study the topological structure of the debate to identify coherent topical constellations. Finally, we analyse the debate time dynamics and infer lead/follow relations among factions. Results show that the proposed methodology can be employed to perform a statistical rhetorics analysis of debates, and map the architecture of controversies across time. In particular, the "no-deal" Brexit debate is shown to have an assortative argumentation structure heavily characterized by factional constellations of arguments, as well as by polarized narrative frames invoked through verbs related to Creation and Destruction. Our findings highlight the benefits of implementing a systemic approach to the analysis of debates, which allows the unveiling of topical and factional dependencies between arguments employed in online debates.

Contrastive Reasons Detection and Clustering from Online Polarized Debate

Polarization Detection on Social Networks: dual contrastive objectives for Self-supervision

Discourse Parsing of Contentious, Non-Convergent Online Discussions

Biased processing and opinion polarization: experimental refinement of argument communication theory in the context of the energy debate

A Deeper (Autoregressive) Approach to Non-Convergent Discourse Parsing

Computational Modeling of Hierarchically Polarized Groups by Structured Matrix Factorization

Modeling Ideological Salience and Framing in Polarized Online Groups with Graph Neural Networks and Structured Sparsity

We Don't Speak the Same Language: Interpreting Polarization through Machine Translation

Discrete Argument Representation Learning for Interactive Argument Pair Identification.

Multimodal Sentiment Intensity Analysis in Videos: Facial Gestures and Verbal Messages

Unsupervised Discovery of Discourse Relations for Eliminating Intra-sentence Polarity Ambiguities.

A Piece of My Mind: A Sentiment Analysis Approach for Online Dispute Detection

Application of Interactive Computer-Assisted Argument Extraction to Opinionated Social Media Texts

Out of the Echo Chamber: Detecting Countering Debate Speeches

Changing Views: Persuasion Modeling and Argument Extraction from Online Discussions

Analyzing Polarization in Social Media: Method and Application to Tweets on 21 Mass Shootings

A Multimodal Predictive Model of Successful Debaters or How I Learned to Sway Votes

The Unfolding Structure of Arguments in Online Debates: The case of a No-Deal Brexit

Seeing Things from a Different Angle: Discovering Diverse Perspectives about Claims

A Novel Sentiment Polarity Detection Framework for Chinese

Linking the Dynamics of User Stance to the Structure of Online Discussions