Why argue? Towards a cost–benefit analysis of argumentation

Argument and Computation 1 (1):71-91 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article proposes a cost-benefit analysis of argumentation, with the aim of highlighting the strategic considerations that govern the agent's decision to argue or not. In spite of its paramount importance, the topic of argumentative decision-making has not received substantial attention in argumentation theories so far. We offer an explanation for this lack of consideration and propose a tripartite taxonomy and detailed description of the strategic reasons considered by arguers in their decision-making: benefits, costs, and dangers. We insist that the implications of acknowledging the strategic dimension of arguing are far-reaching, including promising insights on how to develop better argumentation technologies

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-07-27

Downloads
76 (#209,950)

6 months
15 (#143,114)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

References found in this work

Convention: A Philosophical Study.David Kellogg Lewis - 1969 - Cambridge, MA, USA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Knowledge in a social world.Alvin I. Goldman - 1991 - New York: Oxford University Press.

View all 35 references / Add more references