Argumentation in Multi-Issue Debates
AbstractAn axiomatic modeling approach to multi-issue debates is proposed. A debate is viewed as a decision procedure consisting of two stages: (1) an "argumentation rule" determines what arguments are admissible for each party, given the "raw data", depending on the issue or set of issues under discussion; (2) a "persuasion rule" determines the strength of the admissible arguments and selects the winning party. Persuasion rules are characterized for various alternative specifications of the argumentation rule. These characterizations capture rhetorical effects that we sometimes encounter in real-life multi-issue debates.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by David K. Levine in its series Levine's Working Paper Archive with number 506439000000000204.
Date of creation: 27 Jan 2003
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.dklevine.com/
Other versions of this item:
- Spiegler, R, 2006. "Argumentation in multi-issue debates," Open Access publications from University College London http://discovery.ucl.ac.u, University College London.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Glazer, J. & Rubinstein, A., 1997.
"Debates and Decisions: On a Rationale of Argumentation Rules,"
17-97, Tel Aviv.
- Glazer, Jacob & Rubinstein, Ariel, 2001. "Debates and Decisions: On a Rationale of Argumentation Rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 158-173, August.
- A. Rubinstein & J. Glazer, . "Debates and Decisions, On a Rationale of Argumentation Rules," Princeton Economic Theory Papers 00s7, Economics Department, Princeton University.
- Enriqueta Aragones & Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2013.
"Rhetoric and Analogies,"
UFAE and IAE Working Papers
932.13, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
- Enriqueta Aragonès & Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2013. "Rhetoric and Analogies," Working Papers 706, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
- Enriqueta Aragones & Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2013. "Rhetoric and Analogies," PIER Working Paper Archive 13-039, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
- Aragones, E. & Gilboa, I. & Postlewaite, A. & Schmeidler, D., 2001. "Rhetoric and Analogies," Papers 2001-15, Tel Aviv.
- Javier Rivas & Carmelo Rodriguez-Alvarez, 2012. "Deliberation, Leadership and Information Aggregation," Discussion Papers in Economics 12/16, Department of Economics, University of Leicester.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (David K. Levine).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.