What Is Dialectic?
Dialectic is structured truth-seeking through tension: identify weak reasoning, recover the strongest opposing claim, and move toward a testable synthesis instead of tribal point-scoring.
How The Two Agents Work As One
| Step | FallacyAgent Role | ParableAgent Role | Dialectic Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Diagnose | Name the pattern and stacked fallacies. | Surface the moral failure mode. | Shared map of what is broken. |
| 2. Steelman | State the strongest opposing argument briefly. | Anchor empathy and neighbor-duty. | Fair framing before rebuttal. |
| 3. Reframe | Freeze endpoint, burden, and evidence standard. | Select virtue driver and matching parable. | From heat to coherent criteria. |
| 4. Commit | Expose non-falsifiable escape routes. | Attach one concrete practice. | Actionable next step with accountability. |
Case Handling In Reverse Order (Fewest Fallacies First)
Ordering rule: solve lower-density stacks first, then escalate to heavier flood cases.
| Order | Case | Fallacies | Dialectic Move |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Case O: Judicial Gift Disclosure Framing | 5 | Restore the original endpoint: disclosure duty, not seat utilization. Ask for explicit disclosure rule and evidence threshold. |
| 2 | Case K: Climate Preemptive Rebuttal Messaging | 6 | Interrupt pre-buttal sequencing. Require claim-first format, then test counter-claims under the same standard. |
| 3 | Case N: Confirmation Hearing Question-Reversal Trap | 6 | Refuse the reversal. Repeat the unanswered yes/no, then allow one clarifying context statement. |
| 4 | Case J: Fiscal Transmission Dispute | 3+3 | Split mechanism from distribution. Grant growth premise provisionally, then demand endpoint integrity on who benefits. |
| 5 | Case H: Threshold Absolutism Ethics Frame | 7 | Block continuum exploitation by setting a policy threshold criterion before debating edge dates. |
| 6 | Case I: Audience-Segmented Respectability Cover | 7 | Run cross-audience consistency check: same claim, same data, same conclusion across all audiences. |
| 7 | Case L: Carbon Nationalism Framing | 7 | Re-anchor scope to highest-impact levers first; block substitution of identity proxy for emissions strategy. |
| 8 | Case E: Sequence-Means-Cause Security Narrative | 8 | Separate chronology from causation. Require mechanism and counterfactual, not sequence alone. |
| 9 | Case F: Risk-Bowl Immigration Framing | 8 | Replace salience metaphor with base-rate math and proportional safeguards. |
| 10 | Hip Sensor Project | 8 | Pause build-first momentum. Reassert requirement traceability and kill sunk-cost escalation. |
| 11 | Case M: Curriculum Litigation Overload | 8 | Counter flood tactics with one keystone challenge and one adjudicated precedent checkpoint. |
| 12 | Case D: Safety Panic Generalization | 9 | Force base-rate framing and symmetric standards before any restrictive policy claim. |
| 13 | Case C: Climate Uncertainty as Inaction Trigger | 10 | Separate model uncertainty from decision paralysis; compare expected harms under action vs delay. |
| 14 | Case A: Eligibility Framing in Competitive Sport | 11 | Reject edge-case universalization. Restore category rule symmetry and population-level evidence. |
| 15 | Case B: Legal Emergency Justification Framework | 11 | Refuse contradiction-as-policy. Require sunset criteria, external checks, and falsifiable necessity tests. |
Practical Dialectic Rule
Low density: enumerate and resolve directly.
High density: win on keystone assumptions, then propose one measurable practice.
> "Run dialectic on Case O with integrity alignment."
> "Steelman Case J, then separate mechanism from distribution."
> "Find keystone assumption for Case M and propose one practice."