A Persuasive Chatbot Using a Crowd-Sourced Argument Graph and Concerns

Chatbots are versatile tools that have the potential of being used for computational persuasion where the chatbot acts as the persuader and the human agent as the persuadee. To allow the user to type his or her arguments, as opposed to selecting them from a menu, the chatbot needs a sufficiently large knowledge base of arguments and counterarguments. And in order to make the user change their current stance on a subject, the chatbot needs a method to select persuasive counterarguments. To address this, we present a chatbot that is equipped with an argument graph and the ability to identify the concerns of the user argument in order to select appropriate counterarguments. We evaluate the bot in a study with participants and show how using our method can make the chatbot more persuasive.

[1]  Emmanuel Hadoux,et al.  Comfort or safety? Gathering and using the concerns of a participant for better persuasion , 2019, Argument Comput..

[2]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  An introduction to argumentation semantics , 2011, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[3]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Lisa Andreevna Chalaguine,et al.  Knowledge Acquisition and Corpus for Argumentation-Based Chatbots , 2019, AI³@AI*IA.

[5]  Serena Villata,et al.  Emotions and personality traits in argumentation: An empirical evaluation1 , 2017, Argument Comput..

[6]  Cam-Tu Nguyen,et al.  Dave the debater: a retrieval-based and generative argumentative dialogue agent , 2018, ArgMining@EMNLP.

[7]  Henry W. W. Potts,et al.  Impact of Argument Type and Concerns in Argumentation with a Chatbot , 2019, 2019 IEEE 31st International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI).

[8]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  A Corpus for Research on Deliberation and Debate , 2012, LREC.

[9]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Chatbot Design for Argument Harvesting , 2018, COMMA.

[10]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[11]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  Argument Strength is in the Eye of the Beholder: Audience Effects in Persuasion , 2017, EACL.

[12]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Introduction to structured argumentation , 2014, Argument Comput..

[13]  Jan Snajder,et al.  Back up your Stance: Recognizing Arguments in Online Discussions , 2014, ArgMining@ACL.

[14]  Claire Cardie,et al.  Learning with Compositional Semantics as Structural Inference for Subsentential Sentiment Analysis , 2008, EMNLP.

[15]  Amita Misra,et al.  Debbie, the Debate Bot of the Future , 2017, IWSDS.

[16]  Iryna Gurevych,et al.  Which argument is more convincing? Analyzing and predicting convincingness of Web arguments using bidirectional LSTM , 2016, ACL.

[17]  Shimei Pan,et al.  Personalized Emphasis Framing for Persuasive Message Generation , 2016, EMNLP.

[18]  José Neves,et al.  Using Personality Types to Support Argumentation , 2009, ArgMAS.

[19]  Brian Ecker,et al.  Argument Mining: Extracting Arguments from Online Dialogue , 2015, SIGDIAL Conference.