Despite extensive research in Argument Mining (AM), the field faces significant challenges in limited reproducibility, difficulty in comparing systems due to varying task combinations, and a lack of interoperability caused by the heterogeneous nature of argumentation theory. These challenges are further exacerbated by the absence of dedicated tools, with most advancements remaining isolated research outputs rather than reusable systems. The oAMF (Open Argument Mining Framework) addresses these issues by providing an open-source, modular, and scalable platform that unifies diverse AM methods. Initially released with seventeen integrated modules, the oAMF serves as a starting point for researchers and developers to build, experiment with, and deploy AM pipelines while ensuring interoperability and allowing multiple theories of argumentation to co-exist within the same framework. Its flexible design supports integration via Python APIs, drag-and-drop tools, and web interfaces, streamlining AM development for research and industry setup, facilitating method comparison, and reproducibility.

It is known from large-scale crowd experimentation that some people are innately better at analysing complex situations and making justified predictions – the so-called ‘superforecasters’. Surprisingly, however, there has to date been no work exploring the role played by the reasoning in those justifications. Bag-of-words analyses might tell us something, but the real value lies in understanding what features of reasoning and argumentation lead to better forecasts – both in providing an objective measure for argument quality, and even more importantly, in providing guidance on how to improve forecasting performance. The work presented here covers the creation of a unique dataset of such prediction rationales, the structure of which naturally lends itself to partially automated annotation which in turn is used as the basis for subsequent manual enhancement that provides a uniquely fine-grained and close characterisation of the structure of argumentation, with potential impact on forecasting domains from intelligence analysis to investment decision-making.

Building on the recent results of a study into the roles that are played by questions in argumentative dialogue (Hautli-Janisz et al.,2022a), we expand the analysis to investigate a newly released corpus that constitutes the largest extant corpus of closely annotated debate. Questions play a critical role in driving dialogical discourse forward; in combative or critical discursive environments, they not only provide a range of discourse management techniques, they also scaffold the semantic structure of the positions that interlocutors develop. The boundaries, however, between providing substantive answers to questions, merely responding to questions, and evading questions entirely, are fuzzy and the way in which answers, responses and evasions affect the subsequent development of dialogue and argumentation structure are poorly understood. In this paper, we explore how questions have ramifications on the large-scale structure of a debate using as our substrate the BBC television programme Question Time, the foremost topical debate show in the UK. Analysis of the data demonstrates not only that questioning plays a particularly prominent role in such debate, but also that its repercussions can reverberate through a discourse.

Broadcast political debate is a core pillar of democracy: it is the public’s easiest access to opinions that shape policies and enables the general public to make informed choices. With QT30, we present the largest corpus of analysed dialogical argumentation ever created (19,842 utterances, 280,000 words) and also the largest corpus of analysed broadcast political debate to date, using 30 episodes of BBC’s ‘Question Time’ from 2020 and 2021. Question Time is the prime institution in UK broadcast political debate and features questions from the public on current political issues, which are responded to by a weekly panel of five figures of UK politics and society. QT30 is highly argumentative and combines language of well-versed political rhetoric with direct, often combative, justification-seeking of the general public. QT30 is annotated with Inference Anchoring Theory, a framework well-known in argument mining, which encodes the way arguments and conflicts are created and reacted to in dialogical settings. The resource is freely available at http://corpora.aifdb.org/qt30.