  An audience's prior beliefs and morals are strong indicators of how likely
they will be affected by a given argument. Utilizing such knowledge can help
focus on shared values to bring disagreeing parties towards agreement. In
argumentation technology, however, this is barely exploited so far. This paper
studies the feasibility of automatically generating morally framed arguments as
well as their effect on different audiences. Following the moral foundation
theory, we propose a system that effectively generates arguments focusing on
different morals. In an in-depth user study, we ask liberals and conservatives
to evaluate the impact of these arguments. Our results suggest that,
particularly when prior beliefs are challenged, an audience becomes more
affected by morally framed arguments.
