I recently saw Paul Graham’s 6 level taxonomy for disagreeing referenced for the first time. It’s a great framework that I will be sure to use in the future.
DH0. Name-calling. The author is a self-important dilettante.
DH1. Ad Hominem. Of course he would say that. He’s a senator.
DH2. Responding to Tone. I can’t believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
DH3. Contradiction. I can’t believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
DH4. Counterargument. Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it’s common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don’t realize it.
DH5. Refutation.
quotation
But this is wrong for the following reasons…
DH6. Refuting the Central Point. The author’s main point seems to be x. As he says:
quotation
But this is wrong for the following reasons…
(via)