Strategic argumentation: A game theoretical investigation

Argumentation is modelled as a game where the payoffs are measured in terms of the probability that the claimed conclusion is, or is not, defeasibly provable, given a history of arguments that have actually been exchanged, and given the probability of the factual premises. The probability of a conclusion is calculated using a standard variant of Defeasible Logic, in combination with standard probability calculus. It is a new element of the present approach that the exchange of arguments is analysed with game theoretical tools, yielding a prescriptive and to some extent even predictive account of the actual course of play. A brief comparison with existing argument-based dialogue approaches confirms that such a prescriptive account of the actual argumentation has been almost lacking in the approaches proposed so far.

Characteristics of long-term cannabis users in Sydney, Australia

Two hundred long-term cannabis users (58% male) were interviewed on their characteristics and experience of use. Respondents had been regularly using cannabis for an average of 11 years and more than half used daily (56%). The most common route of administration was in a waterpipe, and nearly all (93%) smoked the flowering heads ot the plant. One in 5 (21%) had a cannabis-related conviction. The benefits of use were perceived to be its relaxing, mood-enhancing effects, and its ability to alter consciousness. The most commonly cited negative aspects of use were cost, negative psychological effects and legal status. Polydrug use was common, with alcohol and tobacco almost universally used on a regular basis. More than half the drinkers in the sample were consuming alcohol at hazardous or harmful levels.