When designing a cryptographic protocol such as the one in Figure 4, one often uses arguments such as "since this message was digitally signed by one principal A, a second principal B can be sure it came from A" in informal proofs justifying how the cryptographic protocol works.
Against this background, a growing body of work has examined the use of Persuasive Negotiation (PN), which involves negotiating using rhetorical arguments (such as threats, rewards, or appeals), in trying to convince an opponent to accept a given offer.
The first model explains why people use an inductive, probabilistic reasoning process even when using ostensibly deductive arguments such as Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens.
When I was in graduate school, I used to think arguments such as Wadhwa's were just sour grapes from American students who couldn't cut it, and their teachers who let them slack.
Other differences are harder to explain using any of these arguments, such as the significantly greater predictive accuracy of type 2 diabetes compared with coronary artery disease, which is more heritable and has been subjected to larger GWAS meta-analyses.
Do not use the age-old debate arguments such as "how could an omnipotent all-knowing God allow such evils as pedophilia or the Jewish holocaust", etc.
The conversation then turned to the use of biblical texts in societal arguments, such as the gay marriage issue.
Nevertheless, arguments such as Kuper's are not uncommon.
Increase your vocabulary to include great segue words and debate jargon to use in your argument, such as "moreover", "inasmuch", "per se" (by, of, for, or in itself)[2] and "vis-a-vis" (face to face with)[3].
