Why arguing? Towards a cost-benefit analysis of argumentation

This article proposes a cost-benefit analysis of argumentation, with the aim of highlighting the strategic considerations that govern the agent’s decision to argue – or not. In spite of its paramount importance, the topic of argumentative decision-making has not received substantial attention in argumentation theories so far. We offer an explanation for this lack of consideration, and propose a tripartite taxonomy and detailed description of the strategic reasons considered by arguers in their decision-making: benefits, costs, and dangers. We insist that the implications of acknowledging the strategic dimension of arguing are far-reaching, including promising insights on how to develop better argumentation technologies.