Human Values in Arguments
Identification of human values in arguments based on Kiesel et al. (ACL 2022). Annotators classify which Schwartz human values are expressed in arguments on social issues and whether the argument is for or against the stated topic.
About this dataset
This dataset, Webis-ArgValues-22, asks which human values sit behind an argument. Kiesel and colleagues introduced it at ACL 2022, building on Schwartz's theory of basic human values from social psychology.
Each item is an argument made of a conclusion, a stance, and a premise. Annotators judged, for every value category, whether the argument appeals to that value — a set of binary decisions rather than a single label.
The value taxonomy has 54 fine-grained values aggregated into 20 categories that serve as the classification labels, such as self-direction, security, and benevolence. The 5,270 arguments were drawn from four geographical cultures so the values are not tied to one region.
The Potato config below reproduces the labeling with a multiselect scheme over the value categories plus a radio for the argument's stance, so you can tag which values an argument draws on. Use it to extend the dataset or to score values in your own argument corpus.
- Released
- ACL 2022
- Task
- Human values behind arguments
- Arguments
- 5,270
- Values
- 54 fine-grained → 20 categories (labels)
- Theory base
- Schwartz basic human values
- Label type
- Binary per value category (multi-label)
Configuration Fileconfig.yaml
This Potato config reproduces the annotation task. Save it as config.yaml and run potato start config.yaml to try it.
# Human Values in Arguments
# Based on Kiesel et al., ACL 2022
# Paper: https://aclanthology.org/2022.acl-long.306/
# Dataset: https://zenodo.org/record/6818093
#
# This task asks annotators to identify which human values (from Schwartz's
# theory of basic values) are expressed in arguments about social issues,
# and to determine whether the argument supports or opposes the stated topic.
#
# Schwartz Human Values:
# - Self-direction: Independent thought and action
# - Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and challenge
# - Hedonism: Pleasure and sensuous gratification
# - Achievement: Personal success through competence
# - Power: Social status, prestige, and control
# - Security: Safety, harmony, and stability
# - Conformity: Restraint of actions violating social expectations
# - Tradition: Respect and commitment to cultural customs
# - Benevolence: Preservation and enhancement of close others' welfare
# - Universalism: Understanding and protection for all people and nature
#
# Annotation Guidelines:
# 1. Read the topic and the argument carefully
# 2. Determine the argument's stance (for or against the topic)
# 3. Identify all human values that are expressed or appealed to
# 4. Multiple values may be present in a single argument
annotation_task_name: "Human Values in Arguments"
task_dir: "."
data_files:
- sample-data.json
item_properties:
id_key: "id"
text_key: "text"
output_annotation_dir: "annotation_output/"
output_annotation_format: "json"
port: 8000
server_name: localhost
annotation_schemes:
- annotation_type: multiselect
name: human_values
description: "Which human values are expressed or appealed to in this argument?"
labels:
- "Self-direction"
- "Stimulation"
- "Hedonism"
- "Achievement"
- "Power"
- "Security"
- "Conformity"
- "Tradition"
- "Benevolence"
- "Universalism"
tooltips:
"Self-direction": "Values independent thought, action, and freedom of choice"
"Stimulation": "Values excitement, novelty, challenge, and variety in life"
"Hedonism": "Values pleasure, enjoyment, and sensuous gratification"
"Achievement": "Values personal success through demonstrating competence"
"Power": "Values social status, prestige, dominance, and control over resources"
"Security": "Values safety, harmony, stability, and order in society"
"Conformity": "Values restraint of actions that violate social expectations or norms"
"Tradition": "Values respect and commitment to cultural or religious customs and ideas"
"Benevolence": "Values preserving and enhancing the welfare of close others"
"Universalism": "Values understanding, tolerance, and protection for all people and nature"
- annotation_type: radio
name: stance
description: "Is the argument for or against the stated topic?"
labels:
- "For"
- "Against"
keyboard_shortcuts:
"For": "1"
"Against": "2"
tooltips:
"For": "The argument supports or is in favor of the stated topic"
"Against": "The argument opposes or is against the stated topic"
annotation_instructions: |
You will see an argument about a social issue along with the topic it addresses.
1. Read the topic and argument carefully.
2. Determine whether the argument is for or against the topic.
3. Select all human values (from Schwartz's theory) that are expressed or
appealed to in the argument. An argument may express multiple values.
html_layout: |
<div style="padding: 15px; max-width: 800px; margin: auto;">
<div style="background: #fef3c7; border: 1px solid #fde68a; border-radius: 8px; padding: 12px; margin-bottom: 12px;">
<strong style="color: #92400e;">Topic:</strong>
<span style="font-size: 16px; color: #78350f;">{{topic}}</span>
</div>
<div style="background: #f0f9ff; border: 1px solid #bae6fd; border-radius: 8px; padding: 16px; margin-bottom: 16px;">
<strong style="color: #0369a1;">Argument:</strong>
<p style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.7; margin: 8px 0 0 0;">{{text}}</p>
</div>
</div>
allow_all_users: true
instances_per_annotator: 50
annotation_per_instance: 2
allow_skip: true
skip_reason_required: false
Sample Datasample-data.json
[
{
"id": "values_001",
"text": "Everyone should have the right to choose their own career path without government interference. When individuals are free to pursue their passions, innovation flourishes and society as a whole benefits from the diversity of ideas and contributions.",
"topic": "Freedom of career choice"
},
{
"id": "values_002",
"text": "Universal healthcare should be implemented because no one should suffer or die simply because they cannot afford medical treatment. A compassionate society takes care of its most vulnerable members.",
"topic": "Universal healthcare"
}
]
// ... and 8 more itemsGet This Design
Clone or download from the repository
Quick start:
git clone https://github.com/davidjurgens/potato-showcase.git cd potato-showcase/text/computational-social-science/human-values-arguments potato start config.yaml
Dataset & paper
Kiesel et al., ACL 2022
Citation (BibTeX)
@inproceedings{kiesel-etal-2022-identifying,
title = "Identifying the Human Values behind Arguments",
author = "Kiesel, Johannes and Alshomary, Milad and Handke, Nicolas and Cai, Xiaoni and Wachsmuth, Henning and Stein, Benno",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
year = "2022",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2022.acl-long.306",
pages = "4459--4471"
}Details
Annotation Types
Domain
Use Cases
Tags
Found an issue or want to improve this design?
Open an IssueRelated Designs
Media Frames Corpus: News Framing Annotation
The Media Frames Corpus (Card et al., ACL 2015) labels U.S. news articles on immigration, smoking, and same-sex marriage with 15 general framing dimensions. This Potato config reproduces that frame-coding task.
Moral Foundations in Tweets
Classification of moral foundations in social media discourse, based on Moral Foundations Theory (Johnson & Goldwasser, ACL 2018). Annotators identify which moral dimensions are expressed and whether the tweet conveys moral sentiment.
POLAR: Detecting Multilingual, Multicultural and Multievent Online Polarization
SemEval-2026 Task 9 (POLAR): detecting online polarization across 22 languages, many cultures, and multiple real-world events. Annotators judge whether a social-media post is polarized and, if so, identify the type of polarization and how it is rhetorically manifested (e.g. stereotyping, vilification, dehumanization, intolerance). Polarization encompasses stereotyping, vilification, dehumanization, and intolerance directed at social groups.