A Rulebook For Arguments Official

Weston defines an "argument" not as a shouting match, but as a case supported by logical reasoning and evidence. His rules focus on:

Drawing comparisons between similar cases to support a conclusion.

Properly citing sources that are informed, impartial, and cross-checked. A Rulebook for Arguments

Assuming the very point you are trying to prove. Equivocation: Changing the meaning of a term mid-argument.

A significant portion of the book is dedicated to identifying and avoiding , such as: Ad Hominem: Attacking the person rather than the argument. Weston defines an "argument" not as a shouting

Distinguishing between premises (the supporting reasons) and conclusions (the point being proved).

Ensuring premises are reliable from the start and using concrete, concise language to avoid "airy elaboration". Assuming the very point you are trying to prove

Analyzing the "how" and "why" of cause-and-effect relationships rather than relying on mere correlation. Fallacies and Ethical Conduct