Arguments, conflicts, and decisions

Abstract

The relationship between conflict and argumentation presents an interesting ambivalence, both in ordinary language and in theoretical models: Although argumentation is often depicted as a discursive practice aimed at reasonable resolution of an initial conflict, arguments are also frequently perceived as inherently conflictual engagements, more akin to vicious fights than to rational discussion. In this paper, I argue that a decision-theoretic approach to argumentation allows to make sense of this tension, and I review some empirical evidence in favor of this claim. In turn, this highlights the complex role that conflict plays in orienting our argumentative moves. I conclude by offering some implications, both theoretical and practical, of this particular view of arguments, conflicts, and decisions.