Abstract
At the end of Chap. 4, we suggested two levers for increasing the agreement which is brought about by rational argumentation, namely (1) introducingbackground knowledge, and (2) devising argumentation strategies which cause proponent positions to converge substantially at densities well below 0.5. In the previous chapter, we pursed option (1) and showed how commonly shared background beliefs increase mean agreement. This chapter, as well as the following ones, focuses on the second alternative. More precisely, we will set up four different rules according to which proponents introduce new arguments into the debate. These rules can be understood as argumentation strategies adopted by the proponents. They replace the simplerandom argumentation mechanism the previous simulations relied upon.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Since proponent positions will eventually collapse onto the one remaining coherent position at a density of 1, the final steps towards reaching that density are of no particular interest. Yet even more importantly, in some specific situations, there exists no potential new argument which may force the proponents to modify their positions. For example, if the two proponents agree with regard to one single sentence only, no argument that satisfies the attack rule renders any proponent position incoherent. In these cases, simulations risk to continue ad infinitum. Experience has shown that simulations with the attack rule are particularly prone to this threat. To alleviate the problem, we have stipulated that (1) a random argument shall be introduced if there is no potential argument whatsoever which satisfies the corresponding argumentation rule and (2) simulations abort if a density of 0.8 has been reached.
- 2.
If full consensus isn’t reached at a density below 0.8, we posit a collapse density of 1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Betz, G. (2013). Comparing the Consensual Dynamics of Four Proponent-Specific Argumentation Strategies in Dualistic Debates. In: Debate Dynamics: How Controversy Improves Our Beliefs. Synthese Library, vol 357. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4599-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4599-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4598-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4599-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)