We present the first dataset, an annotation scheme, discourse analysis, and baseline experiments on argumentation and domain content types in scholarly articles on political science, specifically on the theory of International Relations (IR). The dataset comprises over 1 600 sentences stemming from three foundational articles on Neo-Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism. We show that our annotation scheme enables educationally-relevant insight into the scholarly IR discourse and that state-of-the-art classifiers, while effective in distinguishing basic argumentative elements (Claims and Support/Attack relations) reaching up to 0.97 micro F1 , require domain-specific training and fine-tuning on the more fine-grained tasks of relation and content type prediction.

In times of fake news and alternative facts, pro and con arguments on controversial topics are of increasing importance. Recently, we presented args.me as the first search engine for arguments on the web. In its initial version, args.me ranked arguments solely by their relevance to a topic queried for, making it hard to learn about the diverse topical aspects covered by the search results. To tackle this shortcoming, we integrated a visualization interface for result exploration in args.me that provides an instant overview of the main aspects in a barycentric coordinate system. This topic space is generated ad-hoc from controversial issues on Wikipedia and argument-specific LDA models. In two case studies, we demonstrate how individual arguments can be found easily through interactions with the visualization, such as highlighting and filtering.