1. Dialectic

2. Dialectic The back-and-forth of argumentation
specifically, in an effort to get at the truth about matters.
“Argument” here means more like what you’re used to it meaning: a dispute or disagreement between two (or more) people.
But, dialectic is about constructive argumentation: learning about what the evidence supports, not scoring points.

3. The dynamics of argumentation
A typical instance:
One party—the claimant—makes a claim or offers and argument.
The other party—the respondent— challenges that claim by offering objections.
Objections are the dialectical version of defeaters.
As such, they can be rebutting or undercutting.

4. Some Rules for Constructive Argumentation

5. First Golden Rule: Respond to the argument
It’s tempting to just disagree with the conclusion, or to offer your two bits on the topic.
But, dialectic requires an engagement with the argument, to see if it’s any good.
Question the premises.
Question the support they offer for the conclusion.
Require missing premises to be made explicit.
Offer relevant defeaters.

6. First Golden Rule: Respond to the argument
This forces the claimant to
clarify her original argument,
make missing claims explicit,
provide subsidiary arguments for controversial premises.
The result is that we have a much better sense of why people who disagree with us do so.

7. First Golden Rule: Respond to the argument
In a Balance of Features argument, it’s appropriate to offer rebutting defeaters for the main conclusion,
because the argument assumes that the balance of features supports the conclusion, and rebutting defeaters speak to that balance.
Often, though, directly attacking the conclusion is a way of failing to address the claimant’s argument.

8. Second Golden Rule: Track the burden of proof
If the claimant relies on controversial premises, it’s not incumbent on the respondent to
show that they’re false.
replace them with the true claim that should have been used instead.
if the premise is genuinely controversial, it’s legitimate to request evidence for it
and to refuse to accept it without such evidence.

9. Third Golden Rule: Demand overall consistency
If your interlocutor (claimant or respondent) is being inconsistent, embracing claims that conflict with earlier stated commitments, it is perfectly legitimate to call that out.
This is a kind of parity of reasoning argument, and is very useful for
finding out what good arguments there are for some position.
determining what else we’ll be committed to if we endorse some particular claim.

10. Fourth Golden Rule: Be charitable
Straw-man fallacy: attributing to your rival a weaker version of their position/argument, and then attacking that.

11. Ultimate Premises

12. Which premises require further evidential support?
For dialectical purposes, this will vary by context.
who you’re engaged with
what you agree about
what you’re trying to establish

13. Begging the question (a. k. a
Begging the question (a.k.a. circular reasoning): assuming as a premise what the argument was supposed to be establishing.
God exists.
(CONCLUSION)
The Bible says that God exists.
(PREMISE)
Everything the Bible says is true.
(SUBSIDIARY CONCLUSION)
The Bible is the word of God—i.e., is written or dictated by God.
(PREMISE)
Everything God says (/writes/dictates) is true.
(PREMISE)

14. Some “jerk moves” regarding ultimate premises
Initiating a regress of evidence
requiring evidence for the evidence, until the interlocutor is confused
Refusing to allow the claimant to offer testimony
Premises are often offered on trust/testimony; unless there’s some good reason to suspect the testimony, the interlocutor should be allowed these premises.

15. Some “jerk moves” regarding ultimate premises
Unreasonably demanding definitions
It is very hard to give a rigorous definition even of very well understood concepts.
Thus, it’s unreasonable to demand a definition of a concept that is well enough understood.

16. Parity of Reasoning Arguments

17. A: “I can’t believe you spent the night at your ex’s apartment last night. You’d be furious if I did that!”
B: “Yeah, but my ex is seeing someone else now; yours is still single.”
A: “But your ex’s new girlfriend wasn’t there last night, was she?”
etc.

18. Such “arguments” are also arguments.
Parity of reasoning arguments
a kind of analogical argument
A is claiming that what B did was wrong, on the grounds that A’s doing something relevantly similar would have been wrong.
B responds by claiming a relevant disanalogy.
A responds by arguing that it’s not relevant in this context.
etc.

19. B’s spending the night at ex’s was wrong. (CONCLUSION)
Relevant difference: A’s ex is single; B’s is seeing someone.
(PREMISE)
A’s spending the night at ex’s would have been wrong.
(PREMISE)
A’s spending the night at ex’s and B’s spending the night at ex’s are relevantly similar.
(unstated PREMISE)
B’s ex’s new girlfriend wasn’t there last night.
(PREMISE)

20. Such arguments are perfectly reasonable, in principle,
if they involve proper use of argument from analogy.
False equivalence: claiming two things are similar in all relevant respects, when they’re not.
Special pleading: treating two things differently, when they’re not different in any relevant respects.

21. tu quoque (you too): pointing out that the interlocutor is being hypocritical.
Fallacious if it’s a form of abusive ad hominem
Legitimate if it’s a way of demanding consistency of the interlocutor, keeping her from special pleading