Fine-Tuning LLMs with Noisy Data for Political Argument Generation

The incivility in social media discourse complicates the deployment of automated text generation models for politically sensitive content. Fine-tuning and prompting strategies are critical, but underexplored, solutions to mitigate toxicity in such contexts. This study investigates the fine-tuning and prompting effects on GPT-3.5 Turbo using subsets of the CLAPTON dataset of political discussion posts, comprising Twitter and Reddit data labeled for their justification, reciprocity and incivility. Fine-tuned models on Reddit data scored highest on discussion quality, while combined noisy data led to persistent toxicity. Prompting strategies reduced specific toxic traits, such as personal attacks, but had limited broader impact. The findings emphasize that high-quality data and well-crafted prompts are essential to reduce incivility and improve rhetorical quality in automated political discourse generation.

Auditing Counterfire: Evaluating Advanced Counterargument Generation with Evidence and Style

We present a novel dataset for the controlled composition of counterarguments designed for further applications in argument refining, mining, and evaluation. Our dataset constitutes enriched counter-arguments to posts in the Reddit ChangeMyView dataset that are integrated with evidence retrieved from high-quality sources and generated based on user preferences, adjusting the critical attributes of evidence and argument style. The resultant Counterfire corpus comprises arguments generated from GPT-3.5 turbo, Koala, and PaLM 2 models and two of their finetuned variants (N = 32,000). Model evaluation indicates strong paraphrasing abilities with evidence, albeit limited word overlap, while demonstrating high style integration (0.9682 for 'reciprocity'), showing the ability of LLM to assimilate diverse styles. Of all models, GPT-3.5 turbo showed the highest scores in argument quality evaluation, showing consistent accuracy (score >0.8). In further analyses, reciprocity-style counterarguments display higher counts in most categories, possibly indicating a more creatively persuasive use of evidence. In contrast, human-written counterarguments exhibited greater argumentative richness and diversity across categories. Despite human-written arguments being favored as the most persuasive in human evaluation, the 'No Style' generated text surprisingly exhibited the highest score, prompting further exploration and investigation on the trade-offs in generation for facts and style.