ttp://twitter.com/fathorseharry Harry Cunningham He named several. There is no evidence for what philosophy, music or political view is "correct", therefore this form of discussion does not work. There is no evidence for why, for example, the Beatles are better than Simon and Garfunkel, as it is purely subjective. ttp://twitter.com/fathorseharry Harry Cunningham Yes he did -- that the way demonstrated is the ideal way to have a discussion. You're not very good at this rebutting lark, are you? Wallly You can learn from someone without changing your opinion. You could even supplement your own position with an increased understanding of another point of view. Are peoples'  intentions in engaging soley an attempt to convince each other of the legitimacy of their argument? Halfwaytonowhere07 This model is spot on. It details a method for exchanging ideas which by preset, may be contradictory. Adherence to this method presents a way to strictly confine discussion to productive rules, rather than a jumbled mess of opinion, subjectivity and pseudoscience. Obviously wholly subjective issues are not part of a rational discussion and would not be held to this model. To those complaining and nitpicking... this is simply how rationality works. The position with the most supporting evidence backed by the strictest adherence to logic is considered most rational -- enforcing this principle is clearly the aim of the model. A discussion which breaks these rules can't be said to be rational, lest the accuser doesn't understand what the term even means.  Sadly dogmatism and subjectivity still