Coaching practices for How to Evaluate Arguments Fairly
Describe almost anything you are working through and IX Coach finds the practices whose real-world fit is closest. For How to Evaluate Arguments Fairly, these are the strongest matches in the current practice library.
Does this sound like the set of challenges you might be facing?
- I notice I’m really arguing against this person
- I wave through arguments on my side that I’d tear apart in a heartbeat if the other side made them
- I notice I believe things mostly based on who said them
- A flimsy study that confirms what I want I’ll wave straight through, but a solid one that contradicts me I’ll pick apart for hours
- Every reason I come up with points the same way, and that smoothness is starting to make me suspicious
Practices that may help
- Separate the argument from the arguer
Address the claim on its merits, not the person’s motives or character.
Productive Disagreement, Made Practical - Apply the double-standard check: would I accept this reasoning if it pointed the other way?
Test whether you are holding your team’s arguments to a lower bar than the other side’s.
The Scout Mindset - Evaluate the argument structure, not the source
Map the logic and evaluate it independently of who made the argument.
Argument Mapping - Apply the same evidence standard regardless of whether you like the conclusion
Grade the evidence before you know which conclusion it supports.
Motivated Reasoning - Add the strongest objection to every major supporting reason
For each supporting reason, find the best counter and put it on the map.
Argument Mapping - Rate the strength of each logical link
Assign a confidence to each "supports" or "rebuts" link, not just to the conclusion.
Argument Mapping - Steel-man before you rebut
Restate the opposing view in its strongest form before you argue against it.
Productive Disagreement, Made Practical - Find the strongest version of the opposing view
If there are multiple ways to interpret a position, choose the most defensible one.
Steelmanning - Apply Dennett’s four rules for critical commentary
Before criticizing: restate charitably, list agreements, name what you’ve learned, then — and only then — rebut.
Steelmanning - Lead with argument quality on the central route
When your audience is engaged and able, weak arguments actively backfire — make every point earn its place.
Elaboration Likelihood Model, Made Practical
Related concerns
- Evaluate Arguments Fairly
Test whether you are holding your team’s arguments to a lower bar than the other side’s.
Apply the double-standard check: would I accept this reasoning if it pointed the other way?
- Argument Strength Rating
Assign a confidence to each "supports" or "rebuts" link, not just to the conclusion.
Rate the strength of each logical link
- Follow The Argument
For each supporting reason, find the best counter and put it on the map.
Add the strongest objection to every major supporting reason
- When Elaboration Likelihood Model Strong Argument Quality
When your audience is engaged and able, weak arguments actively backfire — make every point earn its place.
Lead with argument quality on the central route
- Argument Quality
When your audience is engaged and able, weak arguments actively backfire — make every point earn its place.
- How Can I Counter The Argument There Is Better And There Is Worse
Present a weaker option or negative context first so that your preferred option shines by comparison.
Sequence information so the most favorable item follows the least favorable
Describe your situation in your own words to search the complete practice library.