Chapter published in:
Controversies in the Contemporary World
Edited by Adriano Fabris and Giovanni Scarafile
[Controversies 15] 2019
► pp. 241–260

Coordination games and disagreement

| Tallinn University
This essay explores the suitability of coordination games for the study of strategic argumentation in disagreements. An argumentative battle of the sexes (ArgBoS) game is introduced for studying various strategies of rational disagreement resolution. The properties of both normal- and extensive-form ArgBoS are explored. In addition, the strategic effects of burning money will be studied. It will be shown that burning money can have strategic advantages in resolving disagreements.
Keywords: argumentative battle of the sexes, argumentation frameworks, argumentation theory, coordination game, disagreement, dialogue game, game theory
References

References

Baroni, P. & Giacomini, M.
(2009) Semantics of abstract argument Systems. In I. Rahwan and G. R. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in artificial Intelligence (pp. 24–44). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bench-Chapon, T. J. M.
(2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3), 429–448. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Porath, E. & Dekel, E.
(1992) Signaling future actions and the potential for sacrifice. Journal of Economic Theory, 57(1), 36–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dung, P. M.
(1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n -person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, J.
(1987) Cheap talk, coordination, and entry. The RAND Journal of Economics, 18(1), 34–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fogelin, R. J.
([1985] 2005) The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic: Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice, 25(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
Gibbons, R.
(1997) An introduction to applicable game theory. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(1), 127–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huck, S. & Müller, W.
(2005) Burning money and (pseudo) first-mover advantages: An experimental study of forward induction. Games and Economic Behavior, 51(1), 109–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, B. B.
(2014) Verbal disputes and substantiveness. Erkenntnis, 79(1), 31–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kohlberg, E. & Mertens, J. -F.
(1986) On the strategic stability of equilibria. Econometrica, 54(5), 1003–1037. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leyton-Brown, K. & Shoham, Y.
(2008) Essentials of game theory: A concise, multidisciplinary introduction. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar
Naess, A.
(2005) The selected works of Arne Naess, Vol. 1: Interpretation and preciseness: A contribution to the theory of communication. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Osborne, M. J. & Rubinstein, A.
(1994) A course in game theory. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Procaccia, A. D. & Rosenschein, J. S.
(2005) Extensive-form argumentation games. In M.-P. Gleizes, G. Kaminka, A. Nowe, S. Ossowski, K. Tuyls, & K. Verbeeck (Eds.), EUMAS 2005: Proceedings of the third European workshop on multi-agent systems, Brussels, Belgium, December 7–8, 2005 (pp. 312–322). Brussels: Koniklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten.Google Scholar
Rahwan, I. & Larson, K.
(2009) Argumentation and game theory. In I. Rahwan & G. R. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 321–339). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, N.
(1985) The strife of systems: An essay on the grounds and implications of philosophical diversity. Pittsburg: The University of Pittsburg Press.Google Scholar
Riveret, R., Prakken, H., Rotolo, A. & Sartor, G.
(2008) Heuristics in argumentation: A game-theoretical investigation. In Philippe Besnard, Sylvie Doutre, and Anthony Hunter (Eds.), Proceedings of COMMA 2008: Computational models of argument (pp. 324–335). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Van Damme, E.
(1989) Stable equilibria and forward induction. Journal of Economic Theory, 48(2), 476–496. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R.
(1984) Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed toward solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter/Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O.
(1953) Theory of games and economic behavior, 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. & Krabbe, E. C. W.
(1995) Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D.
(1998) The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of arguments. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Informal logic: A pragmatic approach, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar