Argumentation and Game Theory

In a large class of multi-agent systems, agents are self-interested in the sense that each agent is interested only in furthering its individual goals, which may or may not coincide with others’ goals. When such agents engage in argument, they would be expected to argue strategically in such a way that makes it more likely for their argumentative goals to be achieved. What we mean by arguing strategically is that instead of making arbitrary arguments, an agent would carefully choose its argumentative moves in order to further its own objectives. The mathematical study of strategic interaction is Game Theory, which was pioneered by von Neuman and Morgenstern [13]. A setting of strategic interaction is modelled as a game, which consists of a set of players, a set of actions available to them, and a rule that determines the outcome given players’ chosen actions. In an argumentation scenario, the set of actions are typically the set of argumentative moves (e.g. asserting a claim or challenging a claim), and the outcome rule is the criterion by which arguments are evaluated (e.g. a judge’s attitude or a social norm). Generally, game theory can be used to achieve two goals: