# Argument Invention from First Principles

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.08336 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.08336/

## Key facts

- Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 22 Aug 2019.

## Built on by (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models in Computational Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09022/) (2023)
- [IAM: A Comprehensive and Large-Scale Dataset for Integrated Argument Mining Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.12257/) (2022)
- [Scientia Potentia Est -- On the Role of Knowledge in Computational Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.00281/) (2021)
- [Large Language Models in Argument Mining: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.16383/) (2025)
- [The Future of Cognitive Strategy-enhanced Persuasive Dialogue Agents: New Perspectives and Trends](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04631/) (2024)
- [Topic Ontologies for Arguments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.09759/) (2023)
- [Cross-Genre Argument Mining: Can Language Models Automatically Fill in Missing Discourse Markers?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04314/) (2023)
- [Argumentative Text Generation in Economic Domain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.09251/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Competitive debaters often find themselves facing a challenging task -- how to debate a topic they know very little about, with only minutes to prepare, and without access to books or the Internet? What they often do is rely on "first principles", commonplace arguments which are relevant to many topics, and which they have refined in past debates. In this work we aim to explicitly define a taxonomy of such principled recurring arguments, and, given a controversial topic, to automatically identify which of these arguments are relevant to the topic. As far as we know, this is the first time that this approach to argument invention is formalized and made explicit in the context of NLP. The main goal of this work is to show that it is possible to define such a taxonomy. While the taxonomy suggested here should be thought of as a "first attempt" it is nonetheless coherent, covers well the relevant topics and coincides with what professional debaters actually argue in their speeches, and facilitates automatic argument invention for new topics.