Following a recent debate in normative theory, we argue that a disputation format is better apt at realizing the crucial epistemic goals of deliberation than the standard "systematic discussion" format. By contrast, we expect that "systematic discussion" is in a better position to realize deliberation's inclusionary goals. Using an experimental approach, we test how the two formats affect preference formation, knowledge gains, decision-making (whereby we use a conjoint analysis and let participants decide on specific policy packages), and satisfaction with outcomes. Topicwise, we focus on the Eurocrisis and the issue of financial bailouts.
