"Dummy Grandpa, Do You Know Anything?": Identifying and Characterizing Ad Hominem Fallacy Usage in the Wild

Utkarsh Patel, Animesh Mukherjee, Mainack Mondal
{"title":"\"Dummy Grandpa, Do You Know Anything?\": Identifying and Characterizing Ad Hominem Fallacy Usage in the Wild","authors":"Utkarsh Patel, Animesh Mukherjee, Mainack Mondal","doi":"10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Today, participating in discussions on online forums is extremely commonplace and these discussions have started rendering a strong influence on the overall opinion of online users. Naturally, twisting the flow of the argument can have a strong impact on the minds of naive users, which in the long run might have socio-political ramifications, for example, winning an election or spreading targeted misinformation. Thus, these platforms are potentially highly vulnerable to malicious players who might act individually or as a cohort to breed fallacious arguments with a motive to sway public opinion. Ad hominem arguments are one of the most effective forms of such fallacies. Although a simple fallacy, it is effective enough to sway public debates in offline world and can be used as a precursor to shutting down the voice of opposition by slander. In this work, we take a first step in shedding light on the usage of ad hominem fallacies in the wild. First, we build a powerful ad hominem detector based on transformer architecture with high accuracy (F1 more than 83%, showing a significant improvement over prior work), even for datasets for which annotated instances constitute a very small fraction. We then used our detector on 265k arguments collected from the online debate forum – CreateDebate. Our crowdsourced surveys validate our in-the-wild predictions on CreateDebate data (94% match with manual annotation). Our analysis revealed that a surprising 31.23% of CreateDebate content contains ad hominem fallacy, and a cohort of highly active users post significantly more ad hominem to suppress opposing views. Then, our temporal analysis revealed that ad hominem argument usage increased significantly since the 2016 US Presidential election, not only for topics like Politics, but also for Science and Law. We conclude by discussing important implications of our work to detect and defend against ad hominem fallacies.","PeriodicalId":338112,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Today, participating in discussions on online forums is extremely commonplace and these discussions have started rendering a strong influence on the overall opinion of online users. Naturally, twisting the flow of the argument can have a strong impact on the minds of naive users, which in the long run might have socio-political ramifications, for example, winning an election or spreading targeted misinformation. Thus, these platforms are potentially highly vulnerable to malicious players who might act individually or as a cohort to breed fallacious arguments with a motive to sway public opinion. Ad hominem arguments are one of the most effective forms of such fallacies. Although a simple fallacy, it is effective enough to sway public debates in offline world and can be used as a precursor to shutting down the voice of opposition by slander. In this work, we take a first step in shedding light on the usage of ad hominem fallacies in the wild. First, we build a powerful ad hominem detector based on transformer architecture with high accuracy (F1 more than 83%, showing a significant improvement over prior work), even for datasets for which annotated instances constitute a very small fraction. We then used our detector on 265k arguments collected from the online debate forum – CreateDebate. Our crowdsourced surveys validate our in-the-wild predictions on CreateDebate data (94% match with manual annotation). Our analysis revealed that a surprising 31.23% of CreateDebate content contains ad hominem fallacy, and a cohort of highly active users post significantly more ad hominem to suppress opposing views. Then, our temporal analysis revealed that ad hominem argument usage increased significantly since the 2016 US Presidential election, not only for topics like Politics, but also for Science and Law. We conclude by discussing important implications of our work to detect and defend against ad hominem fallacies.
“笨蛋爷爷,你知道什么吗?”识别和表征在野外使用人身攻击谬误
今天,参与网络论坛的讨论是非常普遍的,这些讨论已经开始对网络用户的整体意见产生强烈的影响。当然,扭曲论点的流向会对天真用户的思想产生强烈影响,从长远来看,这可能会产生社会政治后果,例如,赢得选举或传播有针对性的错误信息。因此,这些平台可能极易受到恶意玩家的攻击,他们可能单独行动,或作为一个群体,以影响公众舆论的动机滋生错误的论点。人身攻击论证是这种谬论最有效的形式之一。虽然这是一个简单的谬论,但它足以影响离线世界的公共辩论,并可以作为通过诽谤来关闭反对声音的前兆。在这项工作中,我们迈出了第一步,阐明了在野外使用人身攻击谬论。首先,我们构建了一个基于变压器架构的功能强大的人身攻击检测器,具有很高的准确性(F1超过83%,比以前的工作有了显著的改进),即使对于带有注释的实例只占很小一部分的数据集也是如此。然后,我们对在线辩论论坛CreateDebate收集的265k个论点使用检测器。我们的众包调查验证了我们对CreateDebate数据的预测(94%与手动注释相符)。我们的分析显示,令人惊讶的是,有31.23%的CreateDebate内容包含人身攻击谬误,而且一群高度活跃的用户发布了更多的人身攻击来压制反对意见。然后,我们的时间分析显示,自2016年美国总统大选以来,人身攻击论点的使用显著增加,不仅适用于政治等话题,也适用于科学和法律。最后,我们讨论了我们的工作对检测和防御人身攻击谬论的重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信