Constructive versus Toxic Argumentation in Debates

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American economic journal. Microeconomics 2024-02, Vol.16 (1), p.262-292
Main Authors: Mylovanov, Tymofiy, Zapechelnyuk, Andriy
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c197t-e276d5b347b40be35df01f3021cd9a6ac4f0ae102dd67ef8e38fdeb9a81dc2f3
container_end_page 292
container_issue 1
container_start_page 262
container_title American economic journal. Microeconomics
container_volume 16
creator Mylovanov, Tymofiy
Zapechelnyuk, Andriy
description 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)
doi_str_mv 10.1257/mic.20220114
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1257_mic_20220114</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1257_mic_20220114</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c197t-e276d5b347b40be35df01f3021cd9a6ac4f0ae102dd67ef8e38fdeb9a81dc2f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9z81KxDAUhuEgDjiOs_MCegF2PCdpk2Y51F8YcNN9SZMTidhWknTQu1fxZ_W9qw8exi4RdshrdT0Gu-PAOSBWJ2yNuqpLJZv69L-lPmPnKb0ASCFFs2a8naeU42JzOFJxpJiWVHTze7DFPj4vI03Z5DBPRZiKGxpMpnTBVt68Jtr-7oZ1d7dd-1Aenu4f2_2htKhVLokr6epBVGqoYCBROw_oBXC0ThtpbOXBEAJ3TiryDYnGOxq0adBZ7sWGXf3c2jinFMn3bzGMJn70CP03t__i9n9c8Qm-hEl8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Constructive versus Toxic Argumentation in Debates</title><source>American Economic Association</source><source>EconLit with Full Text【Remote access available】</source><creator>Mylovanov, Tymofiy ; Zapechelnyuk, Andriy</creator><creatorcontrib>Mylovanov, Tymofiy ; Zapechelnyuk, Andriy</creatorcontrib><description>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)</description><identifier>ISSN: 1945-7669</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1945-7685</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1257/mic.20220114</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>American economic journal. Microeconomics, 2024-02, Vol.16 (1), p.262-292</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c197t-e276d5b347b40be35df01f3021cd9a6ac4f0ae102dd67ef8e38fdeb9a81dc2f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3735,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mylovanov, Tymofiy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zapechelnyuk, Andriy</creatorcontrib><title>Constructive versus Toxic Argumentation in Debates</title><title>American economic journal. Microeconomics</title><description>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)</description><issn>1945-7669</issn><issn>1945-7685</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9z81KxDAUhuEgDjiOs_MCegF2PCdpk2Y51F8YcNN9SZMTidhWknTQu1fxZ_W9qw8exi4RdshrdT0Gu-PAOSBWJ2yNuqpLJZv69L-lPmPnKb0ASCFFs2a8naeU42JzOFJxpJiWVHTze7DFPj4vI03Z5DBPRZiKGxpMpnTBVt68Jtr-7oZ1d7dd-1Aenu4f2_2htKhVLokr6epBVGqoYCBROw_oBXC0ThtpbOXBEAJ3TiryDYnGOxq0adBZ7sWGXf3c2jinFMn3bzGMJn70CP03t__i9n9c8Qm-hEl8</recordid><startdate>20240201</startdate><enddate>20240201</enddate><creator>Mylovanov, Tymofiy</creator><creator>Zapechelnyuk, Andriy</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20240201</creationdate><title>Constructive versus Toxic Argumentation in Debates</title><author>Mylovanov, Tymofiy ; Zapechelnyuk, Andriy</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c197t-e276d5b347b40be35df01f3021cd9a6ac4f0ae102dd67ef8e38fdeb9a81dc2f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mylovanov, Tymofiy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zapechelnyuk, Andriy</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>American economic journal. Microeconomics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mylovanov, Tymofiy</au><au>Zapechelnyuk, Andriy</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Constructive versus Toxic Argumentation in Debates</atitle><jtitle>American economic journal. Microeconomics</jtitle><date>2024-02-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>262</spage><epage>292</epage><pages>262-292</pages><issn>1945-7669</issn><eissn>1945-7685</eissn><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)</abstract><doi>10.1257/mic.20220114</doi><tpages>31</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1945-7669
ispartof American economic journal. Microeconomics, 2024-02, Vol.16 (1), p.262-292
issn 1945-7669
1945-7685
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1257_mic_20220114
source American Economic Association; EconLit with Full Text【Remote access available】
title Constructive versus Toxic Argumentation in Debates
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T07%3A50%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Constructive%20versus%20Toxic%20Argumentation%20in%20Debates&rft.jtitle=American%20economic%20journal.%20Microeconomics&rft.au=Mylovanov,%20Tymofiy&rft.date=2024-02-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=262&rft.epage=292&rft.pages=262-292&rft.issn=1945-7669&rft.eissn=1945-7685&rft_id=info:doi/10.1257/mic.20220114&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_1257_mic_20220114%3C/crossref%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c197t-e276d5b347b40be35df01f3021cd9a6ac4f0ae102dd67ef8e38fdeb9a81dc2f3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true