Improving Neural Argumentative Stance Classification in Controversial Topics with Emotion-Lexicon Features

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.

Argument mining and stance detection are central to understanding how opinions are formed and contested in online discourse. However, most publicly available resources focus on mainstream platforms such as Twitter and Reddit, leaving conversational structure on alt-tech platforms comparatively under-studied. We introduce TruthStance, a large-scale dataset of Truth Social conversation threads spanning 2023-2025, consisting of 24,378 posts and 523,360 comments with reply-tree structure preserved. We provide a human-annotated benchmark of 1,500 instances across argument mining and claim-based stance detection, including inter-annotator agreement, and use it to evaluate large language model (LLM) prompting strategies. Using the best-performing configuration, we release additional LLM-generated labels for 24,352 posts (argument presence) and 107,873 comments (stance to parent), enabling analysis of stance and argumentation patterns across depth, topics, and users. All code and data are released publicly.

Argument Mining (AM) is a critical NLP task that remains significantly under-resourced in Arabic. This paper presents $\testtt{STAR-Ar}$, a BERT-BiLSTM-CRF architecture for argument discourse detection and classification, as our system for Daleel 2026, the inaugural Arabic argument mining shared task. The task requires the identification and classification of argumentative discourse units (ADUs) in debate and editorial texts.We jointly model these two objectives as a token-level sequence labeling task using a BERT-BiLSTM-CRF architecture that combines contextual transformer embeddings with structural transition constraints to support accurate span detection. $\testtt{STAR-Ar}$ achieves an F1-score of 72.69 on validation and 73.7 on test data. Our domain-specific analysis shows that models trained exclusively on editorials underperform those trained on debates, a disparity we primarily attribute to the smaller size of the editorial dataset. The code for $\testtt{STAR-Ar}$ is available at ${[\faGithub~TTLab at Daleel 2026](https://github.com/ENTAILab/daleel_2026_Arabic-Argumentative-Discourse-Mining)}$