TY - CHAP
T1 - Debates and decisions
T2 - On a rationale of argumentation rules
AU - Glazer, Jacob
AU - Rubinstein, Ariel
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
PY - 2016/1/1
Y1 - 2016/1/1
N2 - We view a debate as a mechanism by which an uninformed decision maker (the listener) extracts information from two informed debaters, who hold contradicting positions regarding the right decision. During the debate, the debaters raise arguments and, based on these arguments, the listener reaches a conclusion. Using a simple example, we investigate the mechanism design problem of constructing rules of debate that maximize the probability that the listener reaches the right conclusion, subject to constraints on the form and length of the debate. It is shown that optimal debate rules have the property that the conclusion drawn by the listener is not necessarily the same as the conclusion he would have drawn, had he interpreted the information revealed to him or her during the debate literally. The optimal design of debate rules requires that the information elicited from a counterargument depends on the argument it counterargues. We also link our discussion with the pragmatics literature.
AB - We view a debate as a mechanism by which an uninformed decision maker (the listener) extracts information from two informed debaters, who hold contradicting positions regarding the right decision. During the debate, the debaters raise arguments and, based on these arguments, the listener reaches a conclusion. Using a simple example, we investigate the mechanism design problem of constructing rules of debate that maximize the probability that the listener reaches the right conclusion, subject to constraints on the form and length of the debate. It is shown that optimal debate rules have the property that the conclusion drawn by the listener is not necessarily the same as the conclusion he would have drawn, had he interpreted the information revealed to him or her during the debate literally. The optimal design of debate rules requires that the information elicited from a counterargument depends on the argument it counterargues. We also link our discussion with the pragmatics literature.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85153650041&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1142/9789813141339_0003
DO - 10.1142/9789813141339_0003
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontobookanthology.chapter???
AN - SCOPUS:85153650041
SP - 31
EP - 47
BT - Models Of Bounded Rationality And Mechanism Design
PB - World Scientific Publishing Co.
ER -