Researchers are becoming increasingly interested in this type of conversation, just as oral and face-to-face scientific discussion has a large following among thinkers and researchers, the majority of which are published as "discussion articles". These articles mostly express difficult topics on which several and occasionally opposing viewpoints can be found. Graduate student theses in disciplines like philosophy of science, which foster discussion and debate (dialogue) between two or more philosophers around a topic, are one of the most notable examples of such scientific works.
Following a brief introduction, the allegations, defenses, and supporting evidences are presented along with naming significant schools of thought and thinkers. Then the author presents the counterarguments to what was said, draws a conclusion, and then compiles diverse viewpoints on it. As a result of the debate, the author may express a new opinion in the conclusion, or one of the previously explained opinions may be given in full or with modifications. The choice depends on the circumstances and target audience. The argumentative structure in these articles can primarily be based on the patterns of Toulmin's argument, Roger’s argument, and classical or Aristotelian reasoning. These three standard argumentation frameworks will be described below:
The Aristotelian argumentation method is a classical framework in this regard. You begin by expressing your opinion on the subject at hand, then you respond to the opposing viewpoint and disprove it point by point. Finally, you present your opinion as a coherent viewpoint with all the necessary dimensions, support it with arguments, and draw a conclusion.
The Rogerian way of reasoning is used when you are familiar with all the viewpoints surrounding a subject and are able to discuss them all at once. You have the capacity to comprehend various viewpoints and bring them to agreement. Introduce the opposing viewpoints first, outlining their advantages and disadvantages. While acknowledging that each viewpoint has merit, explain why yours is superior, and then examine all the supporting evidence, and evaluate, then offer suggestions.
In Toulmin's line of thinking, every argument has six components: the claim, the supporting details, the conclusion, the circumstances under which the claim is true, and the circumstances under which it is false. Using this technique, you would first introduce your main argument, which could be based on a fact, a definition, a cause-and-effect relationship, a value, or a policy. Then you would find supporting facts and evidence (base) for your argument. Finally, you would link the arguments and present the evidence as well as the conclusion (support).
Additionally, acknowledge that there are situations in which your claim is false and describe those situations in detail. Finally, discuss opposing viewpoints from the other qualified point of view (rebut).
This category also includes responses to and defenses of the articles that have already appeared in this journal (joinders and rejoinders), and they are warmly welcomed.