Abstract
Recent work on argument persuasiveness has focused on determining how persuasive an argument
is. Oftentimes, however, it is equally important to
understand why an argument is unpersuasive, as it
is difficult for an author to make her argument more
persuasive unless she first knows what errors made
it unpersuasive. Motivated by this practical concern, we (1) annotate a corpus of debate comments
with not only their persuasiveness scores but also
the errors they contain, (2) propose an approach
to persuasiveness scoring and error identification
that outperforms competing baselines, and (3) show
that the persuasiveness scores computed by our approach can indeed be explained by the errors it
identifies.