SAD: A Large-Scale Strategic Argumentative Dialogue Dataset
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Argumentation generation has attracted substantial research interest due to its central role in human reasoning and decision-making. However, most existing argumentative corpora focus on non-interactive, single-turn settings, either generating arguments from a given topic or refuting an existing argument. In practice, however, argumentation is often realized as multi-turn dialogue, where speakers defend their stances and employ diverse argumentative strategies to strengthen persuasiveness. To support deeper modeling of argumentation dialogue, we present the first large-scale Strategic Argumentative Dialogue dataset, SAD, consisting of 392,822 examples. Grounded in argumentation theories, we annotate each utterance with five strategy types, allowing multiple strategies per utterance. Unlike prior datasets, SAD requires models to generate contextually appropriate arguments conditioned on the dialogue history, a specified stance on the topic, and targeted argumentation strategies. We further benchmark a range of pretrained generative models on SAD and present in-depth analysis of strategy usage patterns in argumentation.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Jan 2026.
Builds on
17 of 41 references.
References · 17
- 2024ChatGLM: A Family of Large Language Models from GLM-130B to GLM-4 All Toolscited by 1,096
- 2023Baichuan 2: Open Large-scale Language Modelscited by 664
- 2025MiMo: Unlocking the Reasoning Potential of Language Model -- From Pretraining to Posttrainingcited by 117
- 2016Winning Arguments: Interaction Dynamics and Persuasion Strategies in Good-faith Online Discussionscited by 106
- 2016Neural Network-Based Abstract Generation for Opinions and Argumentscited by 46
- 2019Argument Generation with Retrieval, Planning, and Realizationcited by 45
- 2020Aspect-Controlled Neural Argument Generationcited by 43
- 2024Are LLM-based Evaluators Confusing NLG Quality Criteria?cited by 35
- 2018Neural Argument Generation Augmented with Externally Retrieved Evidencecited by 34
- 2024Can LLMs Speak For Diverse People? Tuning LLMs via Debate to Generate Controllable Controversial Statementscited by 33
- 2019Exploring the Role of Prior Beliefs for Argument Persuasioncited by 30
- 2024CLAVE: An Adaptive Framework for Evaluating Values of LLM Generated Responsescited by 23
5 more
- 2019A Corpus for Modeling User and Language Effects in Argumentation on Online Debatingcited by 22
- 2021Argument Undermining: Counter-Argument Generation by Attacking Weak Premisescited by 22
- 2020The workweek is the best time to start a family -- A Study of GPT-2 Based Claim Generationcited by 15
- 2020Detecting Attackable Sentences in Argumentscited by 14
- 2023Evaluate What You Can't Evaluate: Unassessable Quality for Generated Responsecited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.