A Resource for Enthymeme Detection in Controversial Political Discourse

Subjective NLP datasets typically aggregate annotator judgments into a single gold label, making it difficult to diagnose whether disagreement reflects unclear criteria, collapsed distinctions, or legitimate plurality. We propose a \emph{schema-level diagnostic} for auditing expert-designed annotation schemas \emph{prior to} gold-label commitment, using only multi-annotator criterion judgments. The diagnostic separates two failure modes: unstable criteria with hard-to-operationalize boundaries, and systematic overlap that blurs the boundaries between mutually exclusive categories. Applied to persuasive value extraction in commercial documents, we find that disagreement is not diffuse: instability concentrates in a few criteria, while nearly half of covered sentences activate multiple categories. These signals align with where domain experts disagree, yielding an evidence-based audit for tightening guidelines, revising category structure, or reconsidering the annotation paradigm.

Political debates are often analyzed through Argument Mining (AM) to investigate the key arguments that drive them. However, political arguments are rarely interpretable from argumentative spans alone, as claims and premises generally depend on the entities (e.g., people, events, locations, parties) they mention. Existing AM resources and methods typically annotate argumentative spans and roles, but do not provide a paired debate-entity layer for asking which Debate Named Entities (DNE), e.g., actors and events, are invoked within debates. In this work, we address these data and methodological gaps by (i) introducing DNE-ElecDeb, an entity-enriched version of the USElecDeb dataset that adds DNEs in both argumentative and non-argumentative spans and defines Debate Named Entity Recognition (DNER) as the task of detecting DNEs, and (ii) proposing Joint Argument and Entity Tagging (JAET), a generative framework that fine-tunes decoder-only LLMs to insert inline argument and entity tags into debate turns while preserving the original transcript. Under BIO-tagging evaluation, JAET improves relative F1 on the joint AM+DNER task by +27.3%, resp. +41.9%, under the untyped, resp. typed setting over the strongest sequential AM-DNER pipelines, demonstrating that such gains cannot be recovered by composing two independent modules. Notably, similar margins replicate on Persuasive Essays (+26.6%, resp. +52.7%), showing effective generalization to domains orthogonal to political debates. By unifying argumentative and entity-level representations within a single view, our contributions pave the way for richer political debates understanding.

LLM annotators are increasingly used in computational social science (CSS), but it is unclear whether their alignment-shaped errors preserve the empirical conclusions a researcher would report. We audit three open-source 7B instruction-tuned models (Zephyr, Mistral-Instruct, Qwen2.5-Instruct) across six TweetEval tasks under four prompt conditions (72 cells) and find that social-desirability failures do not run in a single direction. Zephyr exhibits leniency bias, systematically under-applying harmful labels (offensive language: false benign rate 0.729, false alarm rate 0.031). Mistral and Qwen exhibit overcorrection, over-applying the same labels (Mistral hate-speech FAR = 0.604). All three models exhibit neutrality bias on abortion stance, underestimating opposition prevalence by 24 to 40 percentage points and inflating the neutral label. None of the four prompting interventions we test (neutral, safety framing, depersonalized, chain-of-thought) corrects these failures across models; safety framing can worsen stance distortion. Strikingly, Zephyr's hate-speech prevalence estimate matches the gold rate exactly while its class-conditional errors are large in both directions, an accidental cancellation that misleads aggregate validation. We translate these patterns into a three-part taxonomy with diagnostic FBR/FAR signatures and a lightweight gold-sample validation protocol. The headline for trustworthy CSS: a model that looks calibrated on aggregate metrics can still flip the substantive empirical conclusion a researcher would report.