Comparing the Veritistic Dynamics of Four Proponent-Specific Argumentation Strategies in Dualistic Debates

Abstract

We have studied the veritistic dynamics ofrandom argumentation (with and without explicitbackground knowledge) in the previous chapters. In this chapter, we will drop the assumption that arguments are introduced randomly into the debate and suppose that proponents put forward arguments in line with a specific argumentation strategy they pursue. In close analogy to our investigation in Chap. 6, we distinguish and study four argumentation rules:fortify,attack,convert, andundercut. We simulate debates with two proponents and examine how thetruth-conduciveness of controversial argumentation depends on the strategies chosen by the proponents. In the next chapter, we will extend this analysis to multiproponent debates.