Which Argumentative Aspects of Hate Speech in Social Media can be reliably identified?

With the increasing diversity of use cases of large language models, a more informative treatment of texts seems necessary. An argumentative analysis could foster a more reasoned usage of chatbots, text completion mechanisms or other applications. However, it is unclear which aspects of argumentation can be reliably identified and integrated in language models. In this paper, we present an empirical assessment of the reliability with which different argumentative aspects can be automatically identified in hate speech in social media. We have enriched the Hateval corpus (Basile et al. 2019) with a manual annotation of some argumentative components, adapted from Wagemans (2016)'s Periodic Table of Arguments. We show that some components can be identified with reasonable reliability. For those that present a high error ratio, we analyze the patterns of disagreement between expert annotators and errors in automatic procedures, and we propose adaptations of those categories that can be more reliably reproduced.

Parsimonious Argument Annotations for Hate Speech Counter-narratives

We present an enrichment of the Hateval corpus of hate speech tweets (Basile et. al 2019) aimed to facilitate automated counter-narrative generation. Comparably to previous work (Chung et. al. 2019), manually written counter-narratives are associated to tweets. However, this information alone seems insufficient to obtain satisfactory language models for counter-narrative generation. That is why we have also annotated tweets with argumentative information based on Wagemanns (2016), that we believe can help in building convincing and effective counter-narratives for hate speech against particular groups. We discuss adequacies and difficulties of this annotation process and present several baselines for automatic detection of the annotated elements. Preliminary results show that automatic annotators perform close to human annotators to detect some aspects of argumentation, while others only reach low or moderate level of inter-annotator agreement.