Editing Argumentation theory (section)

== Key components of argumentation ==
Some key components of argumentation are:
* Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different [[#Types of dialogue|types of dialogue]].
* Identifying the [[Premise|premises]] from which conclusions are derived.
* Establishing the "[[Philosophical burden of proof|burden of proof]]" – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why their position merits acceptance.
* For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal [[evidence]] for their position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance.  The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and [[wikt:cogent|cogent]] arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.
* In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent's argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any [[fallacy|fallacies]], and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for their argument.

For example, consider the following exchange, illustrating the [[No true Scotsman]] fallacy:

: Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
: Reply: "But my friend Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge."
: Rebuttal: "Well perhaps, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

In this dialogue, the proposer first offers a premise, the premise is challenged by the interlocutor, and so the proposer offers a modification of the premise, which is designed only to evade the challenge provided.