We present an extension of an annotated corpus of short argumentative texts that had originally been built in a controlled text production experiment. Our extension more than doubles the size of the corpus by means of crowdsourcing. We report on the setup of this experiment and on the consequences that crowdsourcing had for assembling the data, and in particular for annotation. We labeled the argumentative structure by marking claims, premises, and relations between them, following the scheme used in the original corpus, but had to make a few modifications in response to interesting phenomena in the data. Finally, we report on an experiment with the automatic prediction of this argumentation structure: We first replicated the approach of an earlier study on the original corpus, and compare the performance to various settings involving the extension.

We present the first corpus of texts annotated with two alternative approaches to discourse structure, Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann and Thompson, 1988) and Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (Asher and Lascarides, 2003). 112 short argumentative texts have been analyzed according to these two theories. Furthermore, in previous work, the same texts have already been annotated for their argumentation structure, according to the scheme of Peldszus and Stede (2013). This corpus therefore enables studies of correlations between the two accounts of discourse structure, and between discourse and argumentation. We converted the three annotation formats to a common dependency tree format that enables to compare the structures, and we describe some initial findings.