LPAttack: A Feasible Annotation Scheme for Capturing Logic Pattern of Attacks in Arguments

In argumentative discourse, persuasion is often achieved by refuting or attacking others' arguments. Attacking an argument is not always straightforward and often consists of complex rhetorical moves in which arguers may agree with a logic of an argument while attacking another logic. Furthermore, an arguer may neither deny nor agree with any logics of an argument, instead ignore them and attack the main stance of the argument by providing new logics and presupposing that the new logics have more value or importance than the logics presented in the attacked argument. However, there are no studies in computational argumentation that capture such complex rhetorical moves in attacks or the presuppositions or value judgments in them. To address this gap, we introduce LPAttack, a novel annotation scheme that captures the common modes and complex rhetorical moves in attacks along with the implicit presuppositions and value judgments. Our annotation study shows moderate inter-annotator agreement, indicating that human annotation for the proposed scheme is feasible. We publicly release our annotated corpus and the annotation guidelines.