论文标题
野外争论的多样性：从假设和定义到Reddit的“改变我的观点”的因果关系和轶事
The Diversity of Argument-Making in the Wild: from Assumptions and Definitions to Causation and Anecdote in Reddit's "Change My View"
论文作者
论文摘要
人们提出什么样的论点，对他人产生什么影响？关于争论的规范限制与哲学本身一样古老，但对实践中提出的论点的多样性知之甚少。我们使用NLP工具从Reddit站点“更改我的视图”（R/CMV）提取论证模式。这揭示了六个不同的论点模式：不仅是熟悉的演绎和归纳形式，还包括有关定义，相关性，可能性和原因以及个人经验的论点。 R/CMV的数据还揭示了功效的差异：个人经验，在较小程度上，关于因果关系和示例的论点最有可能改变一个人的观点，而对相关性的论点最少。最后，我们的方法揭示了用户之间的一系列争论偏好：“个人 - 非人物”和“混凝土 - 提取”的两轴模型可以占个人之间策略差异的近80％。
What kinds of arguments do people make, and what effect do they have on others? Normative constraints on argument-making are as old as philosophy itself, but little is known about the diversity of arguments made in practice. We use NLP tools to extract patterns of argument-making from the Reddit site "Change My View" (r/CMV). This reveals six distinct argument patterns: not just the familiar deductive and inductive forms, but also arguments about definitions, relevance, possibility and cause, and personal experience. Data from r/CMV also reveal differences in efficacy: personal experience and, to a lesser extent, arguments about causation and examples, are most likely to shift a person's view, while arguments about relevance are the least. Finally, our methods reveal a gradient of argument-making preferences among users: a two-axis model, of "personal--impersonal" and "concrete--abstract", can account for nearly 80% of the strategy variance between individuals.
