We investigate neural techniques for end-to-end computational argumentation
mining (AM). We frame AM both as a token-based dependency parsing and as a
token-based sequence tagging problem, including a multi-task learning setup.
Contrary to models that operate on the argument component level, we find that
framing AM as dependency parsing leads to subpar performance results. In
contrast, less complex (local) tagging models based on BiLSTMs perform robustly
across classification scenarios, being able to catch long-range dependencies
inherent to the AM problem. Moreover, we find that jointly learning 'natural'
subtasks, in a multi-task learning setup, improves performance.