Constructive versus Toxic Argumentation in Debates

Tymofiy Mylovanov, Andriy Zapechelnyuk
{"title":"Constructive versus Toxic Argumentation in Debates","authors":"Tymofiy Mylovanov, Andriy Zapechelnyuk","doi":"10.1257/mic.20220114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two debaters address an audience by sequentially choosing their information strategies. We compare the setting where the second mover reveals additional information (constructive argumentation) with the setting where the second mover obfuscates the first mover’s information (toxic argumentation). We reframe both settings as constrained optimization of the first mover. We show that when the preferences are zero-sum or risk-neutral, constructive debates reveal the state, while toxic debates are completely uninformative. Moreover, constructive debates reveal the state under the assumption on preferences that capture autocratic regimes, whereas toxic debates are completely uninformative under the assumption on preferences that capture democratic regimes. (JEL D72, D82, D83)","PeriodicalId":517133,"journal":{"name":"American Economic Journal: Microeconomics","volume":"47 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Economic Journal: Microeconomics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.20220114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Two debaters address an audience by sequentially choosing their information strategies. We compare the setting where the second mover reveals additional information (constructive argumentation) with the setting where the second mover obfuscates the first mover’s information (toxic argumentation). We reframe both settings as constrained optimization of the first mover. We show that when the preferences are zero-sum or risk-neutral, constructive debates reveal the state, while toxic debates are completely uninformative. Moreover, constructive debates reveal the state under the assumption on preferences that capture autocratic regimes, whereas toxic debates are completely uninformative under the assumption on preferences that capture democratic regimes. (JEL D72, D82, D83)
辩论中的建设性论证与毒性论证
两位辩手通过依次选择各自的信息策略向听众发表辩论。我们将二辩透露额外信息(建设性论证)的情况与二辩混淆一辩信息(毒性论证)的情况进行比较。我们把这两种情况都看作是第一推动者的受限优化。我们证明,当偏好为零和或风险中性时,建设性辩论会揭示状态,而毒性辩论则完全没有信息。此外,在捕捉专制政权的偏好假设下,建设性辩论会揭示国家,而在捕捉民主政权的偏好假设下,有毒辩论会完全没有信息。(JEL D72, D82, D83)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信