TruthStance: An Annotated Dataset of Conversations on Truth Social

Bioethical debates increasingly unfold on social media, yet stance detection research lacks large-scale, domain-specific resources for modeling such context-dependent discourse. We present BioStance, a context-aware dataset of 39,600 annotated Post-Comment pairs from Reddit bioethical discussions. BioStance covers six controversial targets across three dimensions of bioethical controversy: fundamental value conflicts, individual liberty versus collective responsibility, and technological uncertainty. Each instance preserves hierarchical conversational context and is labeled by three independent annotators using a three-class stance scheme: Favor, Against, and None. The annotations achieve a mean Krippendorff's $α$ of 0.82, indicating substantial reliability. By combining thematic diversity, conversational structure, and high-quality human annotation, BioStance supports research on context-aware stance detection, argument mining, and computational analysis of bioethical discourse.

In computational argumentation, obtaining arguments that explicitly support or attack given claims is a critical precursor to downstream reasoning tasks. When these supporting and attacking arguments are to be retrieved using semantic search methods, they need to be assessed for topic-relevance to the claims of interest as well as for correctness of their (positive or negative) stance towards the claims. In this paper we explore how dense embedding models (hereafter, models), powering modern retrieval pipelines, can serve as the basis of semantic search incorporating this dual assessment. We show experimentally that existing models struggle with asymmetric reasoning, exhibiting a strong bias toward topical overlap while ignoring instructional stance. We also show that correcting this bias via contrastive training triggers a new failure mode where models over-correct, over-fixating on polarity keywords (e.g., "supports" or "refutes") at the expense of the semantic topic. We thus introduce diagnostic word-ablation metrics to quantify this phenomenon and propose a data-centric solution. By implementing a balanced argument curriculum alongside LLM-augmented, stance-inverted arguments, we force the (embedding) models to learn deeper directional logic rather than exploiting superficial lexical shortcuts. Our evaluation demonstrates that, for sufficiently powerful models, this approach can alleviate the observed overcorrection, achieving further improvements in stance-aware argument retrieval.

Long-context LLMs can now ingest entire online discussion threads, but understanding their social discourse requires more than reading a long document: models must track parent-reply relations, turning points, scoped subtrees, cross-branch contrasts, and participant trajectories. To test this structure-aware social reasoning, we introduce LongSocialBench, a benchmark of 1,462 verified human-authored multiple-choice items drawn from 94 complete Hacker News, Stack Exchange, and Reddit r/ChangeMyView episodes, with a median length of approximately 73K tokens. Each item pairs a complete serialized discussion and reply structure with a four-option question, requiring models to recover structured social evidence. Released items are verified for answerability, option uniqueness, and evidence grounding. Across 18 models and 29 evaluation settings, current long-context workflows remain far below human performance. The best individual result comes from Claude-Opus-4.7, which reaches 63.0% when prompted to eliminate incorrect options before answering, compared with 72.4% for independent human readers. Averaged across all 18 models, the full-context Baseline scores 43.9%. Supplying the gold evidence scope raises this to 55.0%, showing that substantial errors remain even after the relevant thread region is identified. LongSocialBench shows that the missing capability is not context access or prompting alone, but social understanding over structured reply trees.