were pre-qualified using a reading comprehension task that checked their responses against a gold standard to ensure that they read the arguments carefully. Because we make many comparisons, and our experiments are conducted at large scale, all of our results incorporate Bonferroni corrections.

Dialog Selection: Identifying Socio-Emotional Arguments {#corpus-iac}
-------------------------------------------------------

Our work requires a new experimental corpus that is sensitive to readers’ prior beliefs and personalities. We utilize online dialogs from [4forums.com]{} downloaded from The Internet Argument Corpus (IAC) [@Walkeretal12c]. The IAC contains quote/response pairs of targeted arguments between two people (Table \[sample-quote-response\]) on topics such as: death penalty, gay marriage, climate change, abortion, evolution and gun control. Each argument is annotated to distinguish arguments making strong appeals to emotional factors versus straightforwardly factual arguments.

[@p[0.5cm]{}|p[2.5in]{}@]{}\
: & Not only that, to suggest that untold numbers of women would seek illegal abortions is a question-begging claim that has no grounding in history, logic, or reason. It is an unfounded, unproven claim. It is a betrayal to sound judgment to make decisions based upon unfounded predictions into the future.\
[**R3**]{}: & But it is based on history. There is plenty of history showing that women had illegal abortions.\
\

[**Q4**]{}: & 