@inproceedings{wachsmuth-etal-2017-argumentation,
title = "Argumentation Quality Assessment: Theory vs. Practice",
author = "Wachsmuth, Henning and
Naderi, Nona and
Habernal, Ivan and
Hou, Yufang and
Hirst, Graeme and
Gurevych, Iryna and
Stein, Benno",
editor = "Barzilay, Regina and
Kan, Min-Yen",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers)",
month = jul,
year = "2017",
address = "Vancouver, Canada",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/P17-2039",
doi = "10.18653/v1/P17-2039",
pages = "250--255",
abstract = "Argumentation quality is viewed differently in argumentation theory and in practical assessment approaches. This paper studies to what extent the views match empirically. We find that most observations on quality phrased spontaneously are in fact adequately represented by theory. Even more, relative comparisons of arguments in practice correlate with absolute quality ratings based on theory. Our results clarify how the two views can learn from each other.",
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="wachsmuth-etal-2017-argumentation">
<titleInfo>
<title>Argumentation Quality Assessment: Theory vs. Practice</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Henning</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Wachsmuth</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Nona</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Naderi</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ivan</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Habernal</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yufang</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Hou</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Graeme</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Hirst</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Iryna</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Gurevych</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Benno</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Stein</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2017-07</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Regina</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Barzilay</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Min-Yen</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Kan</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Vancouver, Canada</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Argumentation quality is viewed differently in argumentation theory and in practical assessment approaches. This paper studies to what extent the views match empirically. We find that most observations on quality phrased spontaneously are in fact adequately represented by theory. Even more, relative comparisons of arguments in practice correlate with absolute quality ratings based on theory. Our results clarify how the two views can learn from each other.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">wachsmuth-etal-2017-argumentation</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.18653/v1/P17-2039</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/P17-2039</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2017-07</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>250</start>
<end>255</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Argumentation Quality Assessment: Theory vs. Practice
%A Wachsmuth, Henning
%A Naderi, Nona
%A Habernal, Ivan
%A Hou, Yufang
%A Hirst, Graeme
%A Gurevych, Iryna
%A Stein, Benno
%Y Barzilay, Regina
%Y Kan, Min-Yen
%S Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers)
%D 2017
%8 July
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Vancouver, Canada
%F wachsmuth-etal-2017-argumentation
%X Argumentation quality is viewed differently in argumentation theory and in practical assessment approaches. This paper studies to what extent the views match empirically. We find that most observations on quality phrased spontaneously are in fact adequately represented by theory. Even more, relative comparisons of arguments in practice correlate with absolute quality ratings based on theory. Our results clarify how the two views can learn from each other.
%R 10.18653/v1/P17-2039
%U https://aclanthology.org/P17-2039
%U https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-2039
%P 250-255
Markdown (Informal)
[Argumentation Quality Assessment: Theory vs. Practice](https://aclanthology.org/P17-2039) (Wachsmuth et al., ACL 2017)
ACL
- Henning Wachsmuth, Nona Naderi, Ivan Habernal, Yufang Hou, Graeme Hirst, Iryna Gurevych, and Benno Stein. 2017. Argumentation Quality Assessment: Theory vs. Practice. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 250–255, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.