How to Craft Good-Faith Arguments

Good-faith argumentation is about seeking truth, understanding, and constructive progress—rather than simply winning. This guide provides practical principles to help you participate productively in ReasonSmith discussions.

Ten Principles for Better Discussion

These aren't rigid rules—they're flexible guidelines to help you engage more thoughtfully.

  1. 1. Clarify the Claim

    State your thesis clearly. Define key terms. Avoid ambiguity that could derail the discussion later.

  2. 2. Steelman Before You Counter

    Restate the other contributor's position in a way they would endorse before offering critique. This builds mutual understanding.

  3. 3. Separate Claims from Evidence

    Label assertions vs. support. Cite sources (with links where possible) and indicate when you are offering inference vs. citation.

  4. 4. Disclose Assumptions

    Surface underlying premises (ethical frameworks, models, definitions). Unstated assumptions are a common source of friction.

  5. 5. Distinguish Levels of Disagreement

    Identify whether you contest data, interpretation, values, scope, or practical implications. Target the correct layer.

  6. 6. Use Proportional Language

    Avoid overstatements. Calibrate confidence (e.g., "I tentatively infer…" vs. "It is certain…").

  7. 7. Engage with the Strongest Point

    Do not cherry-pick weaker phrasing to rebut. Address the core logic or evidence chain.

  8. 8. Separate Person from Position

    Avoid attributing motives. Critique reasoning, not character. Assume competence unless disproven.

  9. 9. Acknowledge Valid Points

    Explicitly concede when the other side makes a fair correction or adds nuance. This increases credibility.

  10. 10. Propose Next Questions

    Good debates generate better questions. Suggest concrete follow-ups, data to gather, or narrower sub-issues to explore.

A Simple Response Framework

Steelman: <their refined claim>
Position: <your claim>
Support: <evidence / reasoning>
Assumptions: <key premises>
Counterpoints: <targeted critiques, not scattershot>
Open Questions: <areas needing clarification or data>

Pre-Post Checklist

  • Have I represented others' views fairly?
  • Did I cite or qualify key factual claims?
  • Are my assumptions explicit?
  • Have I avoided rhetorical heat?
  • Did I add value (clarification, synthesis, evidence)?

Common Logical Fallacies

Recognize these reasoning errors in others' arguments—and catch yourself before you use them. Click the info icon for simple explanations and examples.

  • Straw Man: Misrepresenting a position to make it easier to attack. Steelman instead.
  • Ad Hominem: Attacking the person not the argument. Address reasoning.
  • Motte-and-Bailey: Retreating to a safer vague claim when challenged on a strong one.
  • False Dichotomy: Presenting only two options when more exist.
  • Moving the Goalposts: Raising the standard after evidence is provided.
  • Whataboutism: Deflecting critique by pointing to a different issue.
  • Appeal to (Unqualified) Authority: Citing expertise irrelevant to the claim's domain.
  • Cherry Picking: Selecting only favorable data; ignore the total evidence set.
  • Slippery Slope: Claiming outcome escalation without a causal chain.
  • Tu Quoque: Dismissing an argument due to the arguer's inconsistency.

Common Cultish / Manipulative Language Patterns

These rhetorical techniques suppress dissent, enforce conformity, or short-circuit scrutiny. Flag them early.

  • Thought-Terminating Clichés: Stock phrases that end inquiry ("It just is.")
  • Loaded Language: Emotionally charged terms replacing neutral description.
  • In-Group / Out-Group Labeling: Moralizing identity boundaries to delegitimize critique.
  • Reframing Dissent as Moral Failing: Equating disagreement with disloyalty or harm.
  • Information Gating / Jargon Flooding: Obscuring simple concepts behind proprietary terms.
  • Purity Spirals: Ever-tightening standards that render moderation suspect.
  • Love Bombing: Excessive praise to fast-track trust or compliance.
  • False Urgency / Crisis Framing: Pressuring decisions by invoking existential stakes.
  • Absolutist Binaries: Presenting nuance-heavy issues as all-or-nothing.
  • Mystification: Claiming special access to truth to evade evidence requests.

When you notice these, ask for clarification, criteria, or evidence instead of mirroring tone.