Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Advanced Social Interaction with Agents pp 45–52Cite as

Debbie, the Debate Bot of the Future

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering ((LNEE,volume 510))

Abstract

Chatbots are a rapidly expanding application of dialogue systems with companies switching to bot services for customer support, and new applications for users interested in casual conversation. One style of casual conversation is argument; many people love nothing more than a good argument. Moreover, there are a number of existing corpora of argumentative dialogues, annotated for agreement and disagreement, stance, sarcasm and argument quality. This paper introduces Debbie, a novel arguing bot, that selects arguments from conversational corpora, and aims to use them appropriately in context. We present an initial working prototype of Debbie, with some preliminary evaluation and describe future work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.createdebate.com/.

References

  1. Abbott R, Ecker B, Anand P, Walker, M (2016) Internet argument corpus 2.0: an SQL schema for dialogic social media and the Corpora to go with it. LREC

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ameixa D, Coheur L, Fialho P, Quaresma P (2014) Luke, i am your father: dealing with out-of-domain requests by using movies subtitles. In: International conference on intelligent virtual agents, Springer, Cham, pp 13–21

    Google Scholar 

  3. Andrews P, De Boni M, Manandhar S, De M (2016) Persuasive argumentation in human computer dialogue. In AAAI spring symposium: argumentation for consumers of healthcare, pp 8–13

    Google Scholar 

  4. Banchs RE, Li H (2012) IRIS: a chat-oriented dialogue system based on the vector space model. In: Proceedings of the ACL 2012 system demonstrations, pp 37–42. Association for Computational Linguistics

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boltui F, Snajder J (2015) Identifying prominent arguments in online debates using semantic textual similarity. In: Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on argumentation mining, pp 110–115

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bowden KK, Lin GI, Reed LI, Tree JEF, Walker MA (2016) M2d: monolog to dialog generation for conversational story telling. In: International conference on interactive digital storytelling. Springer, Cham, pp 12–24

    Google Scholar 

  7. Conrad A, Wiebe J (2012) Recognizing arguing subjectivity and argument tags. In Proceedings of the workshop on extra-propositional aspects of meaning in computational linguistics, pp 80–88. Association for Computational Linguistics

    Google Scholar 

  8. Duplessis GD, Letard V, Ligozat AL, Rosset S (2016) Purely corpus-based automatic conversation authoring. In: 10th edition of the language resources and evaluation conference (LREC)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Elhadad Michael (1995) Using argumentation in text generation. J Pagmatics 24(1–2):189–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Foner LN (1997) Entertaining agents: a sociological case study. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on autonomous agents. ACM, pp 122–129

    Google Scholar 

  11. Goudas T, Louizos C, Petasis G, Karkaletsis V (2014) Argument extraction from news, blogs, and social media. In: Hellenic conference on artificial intelligence. Springer, Cham, pp 287–299

    Google Scholar 

  12. Habernal I, Gurevych I (2015) Exploiting debate portals for semi-supervised argumentation mining in user-generated web discourse. In: Proceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp 2127–2137

    Google Scholar 

  13. Habernal I, Gurevych I (2016) Which argument is more convincing? analyzing and predicting convincingness of web arguments using bidirectional lstm. In: Proceedings of the 54th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) Vol 1, pp 1589–1599

    Google Scholar 

  14. Han L, Kashyap A, Finin T, Mayfield J, Weese J (2013) UMBC_EBIQUITY-CORE: semantic textual similarity systems. second joint conference on lexical and computational semantics (* SEM), Volume 1: proceedings of the main conference and the shared task: semantic textual similarity, Vol 1

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hasan KS, Ng V (2014) Why are you taking this stance? identifying and classifying reasons in ideological debates. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pp 751–762

    Google Scholar 

  16. Higashinaka R, Imamura K, Meguro T, Miyazaki C, Kobayashi N, Sugiyama H, Matsuo Y (2014) Towards an open-domain conversational system fully based on natural language processing. In: Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th international conference on computational linguistics: technical papers, pp 928–939

    Google Scholar 

  17. Liu C-W, Lowe R, Serban IV, Noseworthy M, Charlin L, Pineau J (2016) ZIB structure prediction pipeline: how NOT to evaluate your dialogue system: an empirical study of unsupervised evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08023

  18. Lukin S, Anand P, Walker M, Whittaker S, Argument strength is in the eye of the beholder: audience effects in persuasion

    Google Scholar 

  19. Al-Khatib K, Wachsmuth H, Hagen M, Khler J, Stein B (2016) Cross-domain mining of argumentative text through distant supervision. In: Proceedings of the 2016 conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, pp 1395–1404

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mauldin ML (1994) Chatterbots, tinymuds, and the turing test: entering the loebner prize competition. AAAI 94:16–21

    Google Scholar 

  21. Misra A, Anand P, Tree JF, Walker M (2015) Using summarization to discover argument facets in online idealogical dialog. NAACL HLT 2015

    Google Scholar 

  22. Misra A, Ecker B, Walker MA (2016) Measuring the similarity of sentential arguments in dialog. In: 17th annual meeting of the special interest group on discourse and dialogue, p 276

    Google Scholar 

  23. Misra A, Walker MA (2015) Topic independent identification of agreement and disagreement in social media dialogue. Evolution 460(460):920

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nio L, Sakti S, Neubig G, Toda T, Adriani M, Nakamura S (2014) Developing non-goal dialog system based on examples of drama television. In: Natural interaction with robots, knowbots and smartphones, Springer, New York, NY, pp 355–361

    Google Scholar 

  25. Oraby S, Reed L, Compton R, Riloff E, Walker M, Whittaker S, That AF (2015) Distinguishing factual and emotional argumentation in online dialogue. NAACL HLT 2015, 116

    Google Scholar 

  26. Oraby S, Harrison V, Reed L, Hernandez E, Riloff E, Walker M (2016) Creating and characterizing a diverse corpus of sarcasm in dialogue. In: 17th annual meeting of the special interest group on discourse and dialogue, p 31

    Google Scholar 

  27. Persing I, Ng V (2015) Modeling argument strength in student essays. In: Proceedings of the 53rd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics and the 7th international joint conference on natural language processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). Vol 1, pp 543–552

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rinott R, Dankin L, Perez CA, Khapra MM, Aharoni E, Slonim N (2015) Show me your evidence-an automatic method for context dependent evidence detection. In: Proceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp 440–450

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stab C, Kirschner C, Eckle-Kohler J, Gurevych I (2014) Argumentation mining in persuasive essays and scientific articles from the discourse structure perspective. In: ArgNLP, pp 21–25

    Google Scholar 

  30. Swanson R, Ecker B, Walker M (2015) Argument mining: extracting arguments from online dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 16th annual meeting of the special interest group on discourse and dialogue, pp 217–226

    Google Scholar 

  31. Walker MA, Anand P, Abbott R, Grant R (2012) Stance classification using dialogic properties of persuasion. In: Proceedings of the 2012 conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, pp 592–596. Association for Computational Linguistics

    Google Scholar 

  32. Walker MA, Anand P, Abbott R, Tree JEF, Martell C, King J (2012) That is your evidence?: classifying stance in online political debate. Decis Support Syst 53(4):719–729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wang L, Ling W (2016) Neural network-based abstract generation for opinions and arguments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.02785

  34. Weizenbaum J (2966) ELIZAa computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun ACM 9(1): 36–45

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zukerman I, McConachy R, Korb, KB (2000) Using argumentation strategies in automated argument generation. Proceedings of the first international conference on Natural language generation, Vol 14. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 55–62

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Natural Language and Dialogue Systems Lab, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA

    Geetanjali Rakshit, Kevin K. Bowden, Lena Reed, Amita Misra & Marilyn Walker

Authors
  1. Geetanjali Rakshit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin K. Bowden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lena Reed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amita Misra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marilyn Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geetanjali Rakshit .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

    Maxine Eskenazi

  2. LIMSI-CNRS, Sorbonne University, Paris, France

    Laurence Devillers

  3. LIMSI-CNRS, Paris-Saclay University, Orsay, France

    Joseph Mariani

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rakshit, G., Bowden, K.K., Reed, L., Misra, A., Walker, M. (2019). Debbie, the Debate Bot of the Future. In: Eskenazi, M., Devillers, L., Mariani, J. (eds) Advanced Social Interaction with Agents . Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 510. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92108-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92108-2_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92107-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92108-2

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation