  Examining the factors that the counterspeech uses are at the core of
understanding the optimal methods for confronting hate speech online. Various
studies have assessed the emotional base factors used in counter speech, such
as emotional empathy, offensiveness, and hostility. To better understand the
counterspeech used in conversations, this study distills persuasion modes into
reason, emotion, and credibility and evaluates their use in two types of
conversation interactions: closed (multi-turn) and open (single-turn)
concerning racism, sexism, and religious bigotry. The evaluation covers the
distinct behaviors seen with human-sourced as opposed to machine-generated
counterspeech. It also assesses the interplay between the stance taken and the
mode of persuasion seen in the counterspeech.
  Notably, we observe nuanced differences in the counterspeech persuasion modes
used in open and closed interactions, especially in terms of the topic, with a
general tendency to use reason as a persuasion mode to express the counterpoint
to hate comments. The machine-generated counterspeech tends to exhibit an
emotional persuasion mode, while human counters lean toward reason.
Furthermore, our study shows that reason tends to obtain more supportive
replies than other persuasion modes. The findings highlight the potential for
incorporating persuasion modes into studies about countering hate speech, as
they can serve as an optimal means of explainability and pave the way for the
further adoption of the reply's stance and the role it plays in assessing what
comprises the optimal counterspeech.
