Comparing and Modeling Argumentation in German Political Communication across Arenas

Deliberation, involving the formulation and exchange of arguments, forms an integral part of political decision making in democracies. Argumentation patterns however differ substantially across different political arenas, such as plenary speeches and committee meetings. However, despite a lot of interest in argumentation, there is comparatively little computational work on analyzing differences in patterns of political argumentation between arenas. Our work addresses this research gap. First, we present a 17k-sentence corpus with annotation for argumentative passages (argument and their justifications, both their boundaries and their categories) across three German political arenas (plenary speeches, committee meetings, and press conferences), keeping the topic (COVID-19) constant. Our analysis of the corpus finds that contrary to expectations, justification by domain-specific expertise is more frequent in press conferences than in committee meetings. Second, we present a pilot study on automatically identifying such argumentative passages. The results show that boundaries are hard to pin down, and models predictions additionally suffer from confirmation bias.

Revisiting the Exit from Nuclear Energy in Germany with NLP

Annotation of political discourse is resource-intensive, but recent developments in NLP promise to automate complex annotation tasks. Fine-tuned transformer-based models outperform human annotators in some annotation tasks, but they require large manually annotated training datasets. In our contribution, we explore to which degree a manually annotated dataset can be automatically replicated with today's NLP methods, using unsupervised machine learning and zero- and few-shot learning.