Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

The sound of inevitability

Have you ever argued with someone who is seriously good at debating? I have. It sucks. You’re constantly thrown off-balance, responding to a point you didn’t expect to. You find yourself defending the weak edges of your argument, while the main thrust gets left behind in the back-and-forth, and you end up losing momentum, confidence, and ultimately, the argument. One of my close friends won international debate competitions for fun while we were at university (he’s now a successful criminal barrister), and he told me that the only trick in the book, once you boil it all down, is to make sure the conversation is framed in your terms. Once that happens, it’s all over bar the shouting.

How to Stop Endless Discussions

When we find ourselves in endless debates where everyone defends their idea, we don't know how to handle the situation. We eventually find a way out, but what we need is an excellent system.

How to win an argument with a toddler

You can’t. That’s because toddlers don’t understand what an argument is and aren’t interesting in having one. Toddlers (which includes defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat e…

Argumentation theory | Communication and Mass Media | Research Starters | EBSCO Research

<p>Argumentation theory explores the processes and methods of reasoning and debate used by individuals in both formal and informal contexts. The theory has roots in ancient philosophical discourse, particularly from figures like Aristotle, and has evolved through the contributions of modern philosophers such as Chaïm Perelman and Stephen Toulmin. It highlights how arguments are structured, identifying key components such as claims, grounds (or data), and warrants, which collectively help participants make their case. </p> <p>Additionally, arguments can be categorized into three main types: factual claims, which are verifiable; judgment or value claims, which are subjective; and policy claims, which pertain to proposed courses of action. This framework acknowledges the influence of personal biases, often shaping the reasoning process, and emphasizes the importance of logical support, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals in strengthening arguments. In academic contexts, the theory suggests that creating valid topics should focus on policy arguments, while also addressing counterarguments to foster a comprehensive debate. Overall, argumentation theory serves as a critical tool for understanding how reasoning and persuasive communication function in various scenarios.</p>

We argue badly, and nothing accumulates. How could we do better? | Reason Commons — Issue Trees & Logical Thinking Process

Millions of people argue every day about the things that matter most — climate change, what to do about AI, how we might build a better world. Some of it is sharp, even insightful. And almost none of it accumulates.

Argunet - Open-Source Argument Mapping

A site about argument visualization, analysis and evaluation, providing you with free software tools for argument mapping. Download Argunet Editor and start you own argument map in minutes!

fenc.es — be wrong on the internet, productively

Trace the map of reasonable disagreement. Break arguments into statements, rate confidence and importance, and find the crux.

Guide to Incrementals/Navigating Criticism | The Paper Pilot

The Paper Pilot's digital garden of thoughts on philosophy, politics, and sociology

Getting started - Docs

Discourse Graphs are a tool and ecosystem for collaborative knowledge synthesis, enabling researchers to map ideas and arguments in a modular, composable graph format.

The Honest Case for the Humanities

Or: Why I’m Tired of My Colleagues Making Arguments That Only Work on Us

Anatomy of an internet argument

Social media isn't toxic, most people just haven't figured out the game (yet)

Make AI Boring Again (xpost)

On the ethics of engagement, the problem with purity politics, and a world worth fighting for Crossposted from here.    I am a contrarian who likes to argue and complain a lot. Because of this…

Best practices: conversation design

An introduction to IBM Research’s Natural Conversation Framework

Hegel’s Dialectics

“Dialectics” is a term used to describe a method ofphilosophical argument that involves some sort of contradictoryprocess between opposing sides. In what is perhaps the most classicversion of “dialectics”, the ancient Greek philosopher,Plato (see entry on Plato), for instance, presented his philosophical argument as aback-and-forth dialogue or debate, generally between the character ofSocrates, on one side, and some person or group of people to whomSocrates was talking (his interlocutors), on the other. In the courseof the dialogues, Socrates’ interlocutors propose definitions ofphilosophical concepts or express views that Socrates challenges oropposes. The back-and-forth debate between opposing sides produces akind of linear progression or evolution in philosophical views orpositions: as the dialogues go along, Socrates’ interlocutorschange or refine their views in response to Socrates’ challengesand come to adopt more sophisticated views. The back-and-forthdialectic between Socrates and his interlocutors thus becomesPlato’s way of arguing against the earlier, less sophisticatedviews or positions and for the more sophisticated ones later.