The Consensual Dynamics of Debates with Core Argumentation
In the previous chapter, we distinguished betweencore beliefs, which proponents give up only reluctantly, and auxiliary beliefs, beyond the debate’s core, which proponents are much more willing to alter. This distinction translated into a modifiedupdate mechanism, namely, thelexicographic closest coherent updating. We have studied the effect of this new updating procedure while retaining the simplerandom argumentation mechanism. Clearly, core beliefs can also be taken into account when putting forward new arguments. Thus, we may devise variousargumentation mechanisms which are sensitive to the distinction between core and auxiliary beliefs. In this chapter, we examine two such mechanisms. The first one is derived from the most effective argumentation strategy studied so far. Themultiple core convert strategy tries to convert as many opponents as possible while explicitly targeting their core convictions. The design of the second argumentation mechanism we consider in this chapter is motivated by our previous observation that a core’s robustness exerts a significant influence upon the future evolution of the proponent’s position. This suggests to maximize, as an argumentation rule, the robustness of one’s core position.