Attempting to have a philosophical discussion with someone acting in bad faith is annoying. You might pose a statement or question, only for them to refute it with an irrelevant detail (sometimes called "whataboutism"). Or they might pose a statement or question in a way that bypasses some basic definitions.

Or it could that they have made a valid point, and your logic is faulty!

But let's consider the case where both parties are acting in good faith, and that your logic is sound (or will be found to be sound, perhaps with a small clarification). What is the appropriate way to re-approach your statement?

I am looking for a rhetorical tool (or family of tools) rather than interpersonal advice ("be polite").

  • 2
    Maybe a concrete example of a dialogue that was a problem would be easier to work on here.
    – Frank
    Jan 14 at 17:14
  • 3
    Validation can help, such as by asking "putting it into your own framework, how would you summarise my argument?".
    – Michael
    Jan 14 at 18:53
  • If both parties are acting in good faith, the logic is sound and the statement is intended what exactly is the point of reframing it? Is it in response to an objection, a request for clarification, something else? Tools are used for a task, but there is nothing in the post on what the task is.
    – Conifold
    Jan 15 at 7:15


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .