© Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. Sequencing Critical Moves for Ethical Argumentation Practice: Munāẓara and the Interdependence of Procedure and Agent RAHMI ORUÇ Munazara and Argumentation Ethics Research Center Ibn Haldun University Istanbul/Turkey rahmioruc@ihu.edu.tr MEHMET ALİ ÜZELGÜN Munazara and Argumentation Ethics Research Center, Ibn Haldun University Istanbul, Turkey; ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Centro de Investigação e Estudos de Sociologia; Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Instituto de Filosofia da Nova, Lisbon, Portu- gal mehmet.uzelgun@ihu.edu.tr KARİM SADEK Philosophy Department Marmara University Istanbul/Turkey karimsadek37@gmail.com Abstract: The aim of this paper is to high- light an interdependence between proce- dural and agential norms that undermines their neat separation when appraising ar- gumentation. Drawing on the munāẓara tradition, we carve a space for sequencing in argumentation scholarship. Focusing on the antagonist’s sequencing of critical moves, we identify each sequence’s corre- sponding values of argumentation: coales- cence, reliability, and efficacy. These val- ues arise through the mediation of virtues and simultaneously underpin procedural as well as agential norms. Consequently, an ambiguity between procedure and agent becomes apparent. This ambiguity hints at the potential for a virtue theory of argu- mentation that draws on procedural norms. Résumé: L'objectif de cet article est de mettre en évidence une interdépendance entre les normes procédurales et agen- tielles qui mine leur séparation nette lors de l'évaluation de l'argumentation. En nous appuyant sur la tradition munāẓara, nous créons un espace pour le séquençage dans les publications sur l'argumentation. En nous concentrant sur l'enchaînement des mouvements critiques de l'antagoniste, nous identifions la valeur d'argumentation correspondante de chaque séquence : coa- lescence, fiabilité et efficacité. Ces valeurs naissent par la médiation des vertus et sous-tendent simultanément les normes procédurales et agentielles. Par conséquent, une ambiguïté entre la procédure et l'agent devient apparente. Cette ambiguïté suggère le développement d'une théorie de la vertu de l'argumentation qui s'appuie sur les normes procédurales Keywords: sequencing, critical moves, values of argumentation, munāẓara, argumenta- tive virtues and vices mailto:mehmet.uzelgun@ihu.edu.tr 114 Oruç et al. © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. 1. Introduction1 Having been developed based on several core components—product, procedure, agent—contemporary argumentation appraisal draws on three types of norms. The first and most widely recognized type relates to the notion of good argument (Godden 2016). Product-based norms are applied to individual arguments, argument schemes, or inferential relations. Drawing primarily on product-based norms, the epistemo- logical approach to argumentation takes propositions as the unit of analysis (Lumer 2005a, 2005b) and examines their truth or falsity as abstract objects (Biro and Siegel 2006). The second type concerns the act of arguing. Procedure-based norms arise from a concern for argu- ing well (Godden 2016) and not derailing from the requirements of critical rationality (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2003). The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation represents this activity- based approach. Highlighting an ambiguity between the product and the process, this approach does not construe arguments as “mental pro- cesses but as made up from statements that create public commit- ments.” (Garssen and van Laar 2010, p. 124). Lastly, the third type of norms pertains to the good arguer. While agent-based norms are less established than the previous two types, a sizable and growing debate in argumentation theory emphasizes the arguer as the locus of norma- tivity. However, despite the recent focus on the arguer’s virtues and under the assumption that virtues of argumentation only derive from arguers (Aberdein 2010, 2014; Aberdein and Cohen 2016), little is set- tled as to what agent-based norms are and how they can be scrutinized. In this paper, we attend to the connection between procedural and agential norms, and our aim is to show their interdependence hence paving the way for the development of a virtue theory of argumentation that draws on the agent’s procedural options and choices. We do so by drawing on a largely forgotten theory of argumentation that emerged in the Muslim world at the end of the 13th century: Ādāb al-Baḥth wa- l-Munāẓara—literally, the manners of inquiry and argumentation (El- Rouayheb 2015; Belhaj 2016). Our turn to the munāẓara tradition 1 The authors would like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers, editors, and copyeditors for their valuable feedback and contributions to this paper. Additionally, we appreciate the involvement and input of the members of the ArguMunazara Research Center and the ADAB project team. Sequencing Critical Moves for an Ethical Argumentation Practice 115 © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. serves two purposes. The first is to spotlight the sequencing of critical moves when discussing the normative foundations of argumentation. The second is to analyze three sequences that munāẓara scholars have prescribed for the antagonist to be a good and a virtuous arguer—these are recommendations on how they ought to order their critical moves. It is through the latter analysis that we proclaim the interdependence of procedural and agential norms. There are several steps to this proc- lamation. After introducing the critical moves considered legitimate in munāẓara, we identify the three sequences prescribed for the antago- nist to follow (see sections 2 and 3 below). We then examine the justi- fications that scholars offered in defense of their preferred sequences. Through this examination, we identify the values that ground the re- spective recommendations. In a last step, we argue that these values of argumentation simultaneously bring into play procedural as well as agential norms. It is rather surprising that despite the predominance of dialogical and dialectical approaches, contemporary scholarship has not yet ade- quately examined sequencing as a central component of argumentation nor appreciated its normative implications for a theory of argumenta- tion. There are a couple of exceptions, however. The first is Lumer's epistemological approach, which mentions sequencing even though, and somewhat ironically, it neither has a dialogical aspiration, nor is interested in regulating a “definite sequencing of moves” (1988, p. 461). In fact, Lumer’s claim is that prescribing sequences should be avoided given their complexities (Lumer 1988, p. 457). As we hope to show, there is some space for disagreement with such avoidance, a space that can be productive for further developing a virtue theory of argumentation. The second is van Laar and Krabbe’s inquiries into crit- ical reactions (Krabbe and van Laar 2011; van Laar and Krabbe 2013; van Laar 2001). Krabbe and van Laar (2011) propose four parameters for understanding and analyzing critical reactions in an argumentative encounter. What interests us here is the focus and illocutionary force of critical reactions. The focus of a critical reaction denotes its ad- dressivity, and it may be a claim or one of the premises. The illocu- tionary force is the interactional outcome of a critical reaction, such as giving advice or demanding certain action. We find these inquiries to 116 Oruç et al. © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. be a helpful step in the right direction and hope to foreground the un- tapped potential by taking several further steps. By and large, sequenc- ing is a blind spot in the contemporary argumentation scholarship. There are four sections to this paper. Section 1 is a rough overview of munāẓara that glances over a sophisticated model for argumentative engagements that presupposed complex interconnections between product-based, procedure-based, and agent-based norms. Section 2 in- troduces and explains the three legitimate critical moves available to the antagonist that the munāẓara tradition identified (objection, refuta- tion, and counter-argument). Section 3 examines the justifications munāẓara scholars offered in defense of prescribing one sequencing rather than another. In total, we consider three recommended se- quences, and by examining their respective justifications, we identify their corresponding values of argumentation (coalescence, reliability, and efficacy). Section 4 argues that values of argumentation are, on the one hand, reflected and expressed in the ordering of critical moves and, on the other hand, enjoy a symbiotic relationship with the arguer. It is here that we flesh out the interdependence between procedure and agent and its contributions for an agent-based theory of argumentation. In the conclusion, we take stock and make use of our looking back at the munāẓara tradition by way of suggesting where argumentation the- ory could further investigate as it looks ahead. 2. Munāẓara: Strict procedural norms in service of ethical argu- mentative conduct The first work that bears the title Ādāb al-Baḥth wa-l-Munāẓara is a 13th century epistle written by Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Samar- qandī (1934). Samarqandī (d. 1302) is considered the founder of the munāẓara tradition (see Güney 2010; Young 2018) that flourished be- tween the 14th and 20th centuries (El-Rouayheb 2015; Arif 2020). Munāẓara—literally meaning ‘regarding-together’ or ‘joint-reason- ing’—grew out of jadal, a discipline that governed how Muslim schol- ars conducted their theological and jurisprudential debates. Samar- qandī’s historic contribution was to remold jadal in such a way that its principles can now be applied to a variety of fields of study, including philosophy and law. ‘Ādāb,’ ‘baḥth,’ and ‘munāẓara’ connote agent- based, product-based, and procedure-based norms respectively: ‘ādāb’ Sequencing Critical Moves for an Ethical Argumentation Practice 117 © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. indicates virtuous conduct, ‘baḥth’ indicates inquiry, and ‘munāẓara’ indicates argumentative engagement. Whereas inquiry (baḥth) refers specifically to the justification of a conclusion through propositions, argumentation (munāẓara) refers to the critical engagement2 between a protagonist and an antagonist. That said, it is important to note that baḥth and munāẓara can be used interchangeably (al-Jaunpūrī 2006, p. 12) since an inquiry is not conclusive unless the related moves of the protagonist are tested with the critical engagement of the antagonist (see Johnson 2012, 2003). Samarqandī’s newly developed model was so influential that it quickly dominated how argumentation was construed and practiced (Pehlivan and Ceylan 2015). In this new and field-independent theory of argumentation, arguments were categorized into ‘necessary’ and ‘presumable.’ Necessary arguments were those that can be traced back to an incontrovertible starting point, such as sensory perception or un- ambiguous cultural norms. Many presumable arguments, on the other hand, are ‘practical’ in the sense that it is not possible to ground them on indisputable foundations. The munāẓara literature is divided in its appraisal of presumable arguments. One side admits a multiplicity of truth; in essence, that more than one argument can be valid and sound. The other side, and notwithstanding the lack of proof in matters of pre- sumption, argues that only one argument can be valid and sound (al- Dabūsī 2001). The underlying goal in munāẓara is the manifestation of truth/jus- tice (iẓhār al-ḥaqq) (Gelenbevī 1934, p. 37), which should not be con- strued in strictly epistemic terms. As the 19th century scholar and statesman Cevdet Paşa explains, in munāẓara, moving towards the manifestation of truth/justice is more valuable than winning an argu- mentative exchange where the winner is the one who has the better argument (1998, p. 102; see also Faytre, 2018). It would be misguided 2 Although Samarqandī treated argumentation as an ‘appendage’ to logic (al- Samarqandī 2014, p. 500), later scholars emphasized the conceptual differences between the two. Without denying the dependence of argumentation on logic, the point was to insist on demarcating argumentation from logic on the grounds that argumentation’s unit of analysis is critical and interactive moves between a protagonist and an antagonist, whereas the unit of analysis of logic is individual arguments (al-Āmidī 1900, p. 7). 118 Oruç et al. © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. to interpret Cevdet Paşa’s (1998) claim as implying or harboring a de- valuing of inquiry or epistemic values. A more accurate interpretation would be that Cevdet Paşa acknowledges the fundamental role epis- temic values have in argumentation while being fully aware that having the better argument is neither the only nor the most important consid- eration as far as the manifestation of truth/justice is concerned. This raises the question of what munāẓara scholars depended on in addition to epistemic values given that the latter is neither sufficient nor primary in moving towards the manifestation of truth/justice. A defining feature of munāẓara that is also at the heart of answering the question at hand is a strict regulatory procedure that determines the moves of contending parties at different junctures of an argumentative engagement (Ṭāshkubrīzāde 2012, p. 7; see also: Taiai and Oruç 2021). To put it differently—using the words of Gelenbevī, an Ottoman math- ematician, logician, and theologian—in the process of argumentation “it is not important through whose voice truth manifests” (1934, p. 33). The strict regulatory procedure was intended and designed to ensure that contending parties approach and enact argumentation as a joint performance for the achievement of a common goal.3 According to this view, without strict procedural norms, the speakers’ engagement may turn out to be merely quarreling rather than argumentation. The fairly rigid and detailed turn-taking procedure is used for distinguishing proper from improper argumentative manners and enhancing virtuous conduct. The rules and manners set for the munāẓara procedure were thus thought to earn one the title of an arguer (munāẓir) rather than a quarreler (mujādil) (al-Āmidī 1900, p. 9; Gelenbevī 1934, p. 33). Earn- ing the attribute of a proper arguer required a thorough study of the science of argumentation and a sustained exercise of its procedure to 3 To put it in Lumer’s terms, munāẓara incorporates an ‘external goal’ achieved through meeting product-based norms, as well as an ‘internal goal’ achieved through meeting procedure-based norms (1998, pp. 445-448). The internal goal concerns the rules of the argumentative encounter (e.g., critically testing a claim C), whereas the external goal concerns the motivation for engaging in an argument (e.g., resolution of a difference of opinion). Corresponding to these two goals, Lumer (1988) distinguishes between the external function of disputation (to cooperatively check a claim via justifying and doubting arguments) and the internal function of disputation (to arrive at a consensus on the acceptability of a claim and the arguments, where acceptability refers to “truth, probability, or verisimilitude” and is determined by the rules of monological argumentation (p. 442). Sequencing Critical Moves for an Ethical Argumentation Practice 119 © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. the point that both product and procedural norms became the arguer’s dispositional characteristics (Arif 2020, p. 193). Even after such a brief presentation of munāẓara, one can get a glimpse of a sophisticated model for argumentative engagements that presupposes complex interconnections between product-based, proce- dure-based, and agent-based norms. In this paper our focus will be on the link between the procedural and the agential. This link is maybe most apparent in how the munāẓara tradition conceived of derailments from its prescribed procedures. Munāẓara scholars thought of such de- railments in terms of character failures and referred to them as argu- mentative vices. The literature deals specifically with four vices: doubting an incontrovertible premise without offering a supporting ar- gument is considered arrogance (mukābara) (Āmidī 1900, p. 58); in- sisting on a claim without offering a supporting argument is classified as subjugation (taḥakkum) (Cevdet Paşa 1998, p. 112); counter arguing a not-yet-defended claim is described as usurpation (ġaṣb); and counter arguing a protagonist's claim right from the get-go is labeled as hasti- ness ('ucūl) (Cevdet Paşa 1998, p. 112). Accordingly, our focus on the antagonist’s sequencing of critical moves in the following sections treats prescribed munāẓara sequences as normative blueprints for well-founded inquiry as well as virtuous argumentative conduct. In the next section, we present the different types of critical moves available to the antagonist and introduce the three different sequences that munāẓara scholars prescribed for the an- tagonist to abide by for cogent inquiry and virtuous conduct. 3. Three critical moves and three sequences Samarqandī (1934) conceived of an argumentative encounter as un- folding over three stages. In the ‘opening’ stage, basic terminologies are agreed upon; in the ‘argumentation’ stage, claims are set forth, ex- amined, and defended; and in the ‘conclusion’ stage, one of the con- tending parties is compelled to remain silent in the face of a successful defense or attack. Our concern is with three types of responses that munāẓara scholars have designated for the antagonist in their encoun- ter with the protagonist during the argumentation stage: objection, ref- utation, and counter-argument. Throughout the paper, we refer to these types of responses as critical moves. These moves are critical in the 120 Oruç et al. © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. sense that each calls into question the merits of a different aspect of the protagonist’s argument. What are, in more exact terms, these critical moves? Critical move 1 Objection (man’). This move casts doubt on a premise in the protago- nist’s argument. The illocutionary force of ‘objection’ is asking for support in defense of one of the premises (al-Āmidī 1900, p. 29; see also Krabbe and van Laar 2011, p. 213). An antagonist could express doubt about one of their opponent’s premises without backing it up. That would be a ‘sheer-objection’ (man’ al-mucarrad). Alternatively they could opt for doubting a premise together with backing that doubt up. That would be a ‘backed-objection’ (man’ al-mustanad). Signifi- cantly, munāẓara scholars agreed that a backed-objection does not in- volve an argument; that is, the ‘backing’ cannot take the form of prem- ises leading to a conclusion. Samarqandī distinguished three forms of backed-objection: questioning-objection, conditional-objection, and corrective-objection. In these cases, the antagonist could, for instance, back her doubt by making an observation, a comment, or introducing a piece of information that questions the acceptability of a premise in the protagonist’s argument (al-Samarqandī 1934, p. 126; see. Krabbe and van Laar 2011, p. 213). In short, by resorting to the critical move of objection, the antagonist chooses to engage in checking the accept- ability of the premises in their opponent's argument, without offering an argument themselves. Critical move 2 Refutation (naqḍ). Whereas objection addresses the premises of the protagonist’s argument, refutation addresses the overall argument—it points to some sort of deficiency that calls into question the merits of the argument as a whole, rather than its individual premises or its con- clusion. When advancing a refutation, the antagonist is bound to sub- mit evidence (al-Samarqandī 1934, p. 127). For instance, the antago- nist might show that the protagonist’s conclusion does not follow from the premises of their argument (al-Samarqandī 1934, p. 127) or that the argument is otherwise fallacious (see. van Laar and Krabbe 2013, p. 204). To be sure, it is logically possible for an argument to be deficient Sequencing Critical Moves for an Ethical Argumentation Practice 121 © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. while its conclusion is true. Thus, the illocutionary force of ‘refutation’ is not powerful enough to deny the protagonist’s claim (al-Samarqandī 1934, p. 126). However, it is powerful enough to corner the protagonist and require that they either overcome the deficiency in question or of- fer another argument that is free from deficiencies in support of the same claim. At this point, the burden of proof might shift if the protag- onist, for instance, engages with the refutation by objecting to it. In short, by resorting to the critical move of refutation, the antagonist chooses to engage in checking for deficiencies in their opponent's ar- gument.4 Critical move 3 Counter-argument (muʿāraḍa). Unlike the previous two critical moves, ‘counter-argument’ directly addresses the protagonist’s claim or the conclusion of their argument. It calls into question the protagonist’s claim by offering an argument whose conclusion is in contradiction with that claim. With this critical move, the antagonist indicates that even though, or irrespective of whether, the protagonist’s argument is free from deficiencies, there still is not sufficient evidence to believe or comply with the conclusion of that argument (al-Samarqandī 1934, p. 126). In munāẓara terminology, this move implicitly grants the pro- tagonist’s dalīl (the argument—an evidence or proof) but rejects its madlūl (the demonstrandum—what is argued for or proven).5 Signifi- cantly, after the antagonist offers a counter-argument, the burden of proof shifts. The illocutionary force of ‘counter-argument’ requires the 4 The reader might wonder about the usage of ‘deficiency’ instead of ‘relevance.’ The latter, like ‘acceptability’ and ‘sufficiency,’ is in line with the seminal RSA model for evaluating (certain) arguments introduced and defended by Johnson and Blair (2006/1977). Our reason for doing so is simply that munāẓara scholars have included certain failures of an argument as a whole that are not a matter of ‘ relevance.’ One example is the charge that an argument implies an infinite regress. Such a charge counts as a refutation since it calls into question the merits of the argument as a whole, rather than its individual premises or its conclusion. Faced with such a charge, the protagonist can either show that this regress is not fallacious or offer a new argument for the same conclusion. 5 The term madlūl has the same root as argument (dalīl). Literally, madlūl means ‘ proven.’ We translate it as ‘demonstrandum,’ in essence, what is demonstrated, to convey the idea that what is claimed and what is demonstrated could be separate analytical units. 122 Oruç et al. © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. protagonist to show that the counter-argument contains unacceptable premises (by raising an objection) or suffers from some deficiency (by raising a refutation). In short, by resorting to the critical move of coun- ter-argument, the antagonist chooses to engage in checking the suffi- ciency of their opponent's conclusion and by doing so the antagonist takes the role of a protagonist. Munāẓara scholars have further distinguished various subcategories within each critical move and have offered subtle nuances between the different moves and their subcategories. What primarily interests us here are the critical moves and their associated illocutionary forces. Now, as far as argumentative encounters are concerned (rather than, say, quarreling ones), munāẓara scholars were in agreement that these three types of critical moves are exhaustive enough to catalog the an- tagonist’s moves. Accordingly, any response an antagonist resorts to that does not fall within either objection, refutation, or counter-argu- ment is deemed illegitimate. In munāẓara, the antagonist is only per- mitted to engage with the protagonist via acceptability-checking, defi- ciency-checking, or sufficiency-checking. A central point of conten- tion among munāẓara scholars, however, concerned the recommended ordering of critical moves: the sequencing. They disagreed on how the antagonist ought to arrange the critical moves available to them such that they would be characterized as a good antagonist and a virtuous arguer. It is crucial to keep in mind that the merits of sequencing hinges on the positioning of the different critical moves with respect to one an- other. That is, whether the placement of a critical move within a se- quence is appropriate, prudent, skillful, vicious, or virtuous depends on the sequential relationships between the illocutionary force of that crit- ical move, on the one hand, and the illocutionary forces of the critical moves that come before and/or after it, on the other hand. In that sense, a justification for preferring one sequencing over another is independ- ent from whatever criteria one uses in order to determine whether a specific individual response counts as a strong or a weak objection, refutation, or counter-argument. In the following section, we will ana- lyze the justifications that different munāẓara scholars offered for pre- ferring one sequence over another. Our aim in that analysis is to make explicit values implicit in different sequencing recommendations. The sequences we analyze are: Sequencing Critical Moves for an Ethical Argumentation Practice 123 © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. 1. Objection→ Refutation→ Counter-argument6 2. Refutation→ Objection→ Counter-argument7 3. Objection→ Counter-argument→ Refutation8 4. Sequencing and values of argumentation In the previous section, we distinguished the three critical moves avail- able to the antagonist and listed three recommended sequences that the munāẓara literature prescribes. Each sequence is a recommendation for how the antagonist ought to order her critical moves. As already mentioned, munāẓara’s strict regulatory procedure was intended and designed to ensure that contending parties approach and enact argu- mentation as a joint performance for moving towards the manifestation of truth/justice. In this way, the three sequences share the same aim, and in this sense, cooperation is the overarching value of argumenta- tion that normatively grounds the different recommended sequences (see Stevens and Cohen 2019). What sets the recommendations apart, however, is how they promote cooperation. In this section, we will ex- amine the justifications that munāẓara scholars provided for preferring one sequence over another. It is through such examination that we make apparent the different ways in which each recommendation sought to promote cooperation. 4.1. Justifying sequence 1 (objection→ refutation→ counter-argu- ment) This first sequencing is presented by Samarqandī (1934) and defended by Jurjānī (al-Jaunpūrī 2006). Samarqandī’s (1934) prescription for how the antagonist ought to order their critical moves serves as the backdrop against which subsequent scholars articulated their respec- tive recommendations. Concurring with Samarqandī’s (1934) recom- mendation, Jurjānī confirmed that, after hearing the protagonist’s ar- gument, if the antagonist had to make a choice between the three legit- imate critical moves, they should begin their critical engagement with 6 Prescribed by Jurjānī (al-Jaunpūrī 2006, pp. 76-77) 7 Prescribed by Mullā Ḥanafī (Mullā Ḥanafī 2014, pp. 40-41) 8 Prescribed by Sāçaqlizāde (al-Āmidī 1900, p. 60) 124 Oruç et al. © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. an objection (al-Jaunpūrī 2006, p. 76). In support of this prioritization of objection, al-Jaunpūrī makes two points: First, unlike refutation and counter-argument, an objection can be raised before the protagonist’s argument has been completed. Remember that the antagonist can raise an objection without backing it up. Objection is the least-demanding critical move. It is also the move with the weakest illocutionary force in that it simply requires the defense of a premise—it neither indicates a deficiency in the argument (refutation) nor threatens the claim (coun- ter-argument). Second, and again unlike refutation and counter-argu- ment, objection does not shift the burden of proof (al-Jaunpūrī 2006, p. 76). Al-Jaunpūrī goes on to clarify that according to Jurjanī, the ini- tial duty of the antagonist is to question and seek information rather than to refute or provide a counter argument against her opponent’s argument (2006, p. 76). Starting with an objection, the antagonist attempts to ensure that the building blocks—the premises—of the argument under consideration are acceptable. The antagonist may attend to the argument as a whole and attempt refutation only if the protagonist has dealt with the objec- tions. This is a stronger critical move since it requires that the protag- onist either shows that the levied charge is superficial or offers another argument for the same claim. Nevertheless, refutation is not the strong- est move since its success does not entail that the protagonist must abandon their claim. In the third and last step of Samarqandī’s recom- mended sequence, and after the protagonist manages to show that her argument has acceptable premises and is free of deficiencies, the an- tagonist deploys their strongest move (1934, pp. 125-126). Counter- argument is the strongest move because, Jurjānī (al-Jaunpūrī 2006, p. 77) explains, it constitutes an attack not only on the protagonist’s claim, but on their argument as a whole. Al-Jaunpūrī reiterates Jurjanī’s claim saying, “Since counter-argument both serves as the ne- gation of the argument and the demonstrandum, it is more powerful than refutation in attacking the protagonist’s position” (al-Jaunpūrī 2006, p. 77). The idea here is that while a counter-argument directly negates the claim, it simultaneously, though indirectly, attacks the ar- gument since a good argument should withstand counter-arguments. Faced with a counter-argument, the protagonist’s only option to main- tain her claim is to adopt the role of the antagonist and attempt to show that the counter-argument contains unacceptable premises (objecting) Sequencing Critical Moves for an Ethical Argumentation Practice 125 © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. or suffers from some deficiency (refuting). Failure to do so entails that the argument they originally provided is insufficient and thus they are not justified in continuing to hold onto it. We can represent this justi- fication for sequence as follows: weakest move→ stronger move→ strongest move The question is: How does the progressive unfolding of critical moves from weakest to strongest promote cooperation? Samarqandī’s recom- mendation begins with acceptability-checking, followed by defi- ciency-checking, and ends with sufficiency-checking. When the antag- onist begins with an objection, they are questioning the blocks with which the given argument is built. In this way, they give the protagonist the opportunity to reflect on and identify weaknesses in the premises offered. Next, when the antagonist delivers their refutation, they prompt the protagonist to defend the reasoning that underlies their ar- gument as a whole. In this way, they give the protagonist the oppor- tunity to reflect and identify mistakes in their own reasoning process. This first pair of critical moves (objection→ refutation) alerts the protagonist to their unreasonable premises and deficient reasoning. Had the antagonist begun with a counter-argument, the protagonist’s opportunity to unravel weaknesses and mistakes would have been by- passed. It is only after the back and forth dictated by this first pair of critical moves has culminated that the antagonist may deploy their strongest move. Now the antagonist may challenge the protagonist by showing them that even though they have acceptable premises and a deficiency-free argument, they have not yet established that their claim is sufficiently credible. The progressive ordering of critical moves from weakest to strong- est opens up a communicative space of disagreement within which the protagonist is permitted and assisted by the antagonist to reflect on the acceptability of their premises and the deficiencies in their reasoning. Only then are they challenged to defend the sufficiency of their argu- ment. Throughout this process, the antagonist engages the protagonist critically by respectively questioning the merits of their premises, their argument as a whole, and their conclusion. In this critical engagement, the antagonist is working with, not against, the protagonist. Samar- qandī’s sequencing of critical moves joins together the protagonist and 126 Oruç et al. © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. the antagonist in a collaborative endeavor to assess the worth of the premises, the cogency of the reasoning, and the dialogical plausibility of the claim. This may be called coalescent-cooperation, merging munāẓara contenders to achieve their common goal. 4.2 Justifying sequence 2 (refutation→ objection→ counter-argument) The second sequence is prescribed by Mullā Ḥanafī (2014, p. 40-41). Mullā Ḥanafī does not comment much on the relationship between the second pair of critical moves in Samarqandī’s recommendation (refu- tation→ counter-argument). Instead, his focus is on the ordering of the first pair (objection→ refutation). He argues for a swap: first begin with refutation and then turn to objection before closing with a counter- argument. Mullā Ḥanafī (2014) criticizes al-Ījī (d. 1355), a proponent of Sa- marqandī’s recommendation, for prioritizing objection over refutation. In his commentary on al-Ījī’s short munāẓara epistle, he notes that placing refutation before objection is better suited to nature. Ṣabbān (2014), commenting on Mullā Ḥanafī’s claim, explains that ‘nature’ here refers to the rules of argumentation. On his account, while refuta- tion addresses the whole argument, objection addresses the premises, and attacking the argument is the ‘faster’ route (Ṣabbān 2014, p. 131; emphasis added). It is the faster route in the sense that the antagonist is not to dwell on doubting premises (acceptability-checking) before first making sure that the argument they are to engage with is reasona- ble (deficiency-checking). Only after the antagonist ensures that the protagonist’s argument as a whole is not fallacious or perniciously flawed do they turn to determining how worthy of adoption the prem- ises are: Check the quality of reasoning first, then engage in determin- ing the acceptability of the premises. It is important to appreciate that Mullā Ḥanafī’s (2014) recommen- dation for the antagonist is not a rejection of Samarqandī’s original contribution. It is an adjustment of it. His lack of attention to Samar- qandī’s second pair attests to that. Furthermore, had Mullā Ḥanafī not been following Samarqandī’s overall framework, it would have made more sense to skip objection altogether. But he does not. Consider the ramifications of beginning with refutation: If, on the one hand, the ref- utation is successful, then the protagonist is to offer a new argument Sequencing Critical Moves for an Ethical Argumentation Practice 127 © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. for the same claim. Consequently, the opportunity to check the accept- ability of the premises of the protagonist’s first argument via objection is lost. If, on the other hand, the refutation is not successful, then the protagonist’s argument is deemed deficiency-free. Consequently, re- sorting to objection instead of counter-argument—Mullā Ḥanafī’s (2014) recommendation—makes sense only if there is an overall com- mitment to cooperation. Without such a commitment, and after a failed refutation, it would be prudent for the antagonist to raise a counter- argument and threaten their opponent’s conclusion instead of giving them the opportunity to further strengthen their deficiency-free argu- ment by engaging in acceptability-checking. The implication of Mullā Ḥanafī’s (2014) adjustment of Samarqandī’s recommendation is that it makes acceptability-checking conditional upon reliability-checking. Significantly, the point of this reliability-condition is not to achieve flat prudence or mere efficiency but to filter out inferentially unreliable ar- guments. With this in mind, we can represent sequence 2 as follows: filtering move→ weak move→ strong move Mullā Ḥanafī’s (2014) recommendation that the antagonist open with a filtering move expresses the importance he places on inferential reli- ability. The question is how that translates into the promotion of coop- eration. Like Samarqandī’s first pair (objection→ refutation), Mullā Ḥanafī’s first pair of critical moves (refutation→ objection), function as an alert system for the protagonist. Unlike sequence 1, however, the ordering within the first pair in sequence 2 introduces a filter for assur- ing inferential reliability. Nevertheless, as in Samarqandī’s recommen- dation, in Mullā Ḥanafī’s (2014) sequencing, the antagonist resorts to the strongest move only after both deficiency and acceptability have been successfully checked. The similarities between sequences 1 and 2 should not distract us from appreciating the importance of the subtle adjustment that Mullā Ḥanafī’s intervention introduces. Opening with a filtering move distorts sequence 1’s progressive unfolding from the weakest to the strongest move and, as a result, diminishes coalescence as a value of argumentation. This is done in the name of reliability and exhibited in the gatekeeping role of the filtering move. Interestingly, the deeper the disagreement between parties, the greater the signifi- cance of that filtering move. 128 Oruç et al. © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. Reserving the first slot of the antagonist’s sequence of critical moves to a filtering move suggests a variation in the way in which ar- guers (munāẓirs) are to cooperate. It is precisely because of its specific arrangement of the antagonist’s critical moves that sequence 2 is capa- ble of accommodating the concern for reliability within a commitment to cooperation. We call this reliable-cooperation. Unlike coalescent- cooperation, reliable-cooperation accommodates some degree of effi- ciency since the significance of prioritizing refutation over objection avoids the potential for dwelling unnecessarily on acceptability-check- ing before ensuring that one is dealing with a cogent argument. Finally, and like coalescent-cooperation, reliable-cooperation is critical and does not abandon the role of the antagonist as an alert-system for the protagonist to revise weaknesses and mistakes. Further, and again, like coalescent-cooperation, in this critical engagement, the antagonist is working with, not against, the protagonist. The difference between these two ways of achieving cooperation is that the latter prioritizes reliability over coalescence as a value of argumentation. 4.3 Justifying sequence 3 (objection→ counter-argument→ refutation) The third and last sequence we consider is prescribed by Sāçaqlizāde (al-Āmidī 1900, p. 60). This time the focus is on the ordering of the second pair of critical moves in Samarqandī’s original sequencing (ref- utation→ counter-argument). Sāçaqlizāde, like Mullā Ḥanafī (2014), argues for a swap: like Samarqandī, he prescribes starting with objec- tion, but then recommends directly deploying counter-argument, leav- ing the last slot in the sequence for refutation. Interestingly, Sāçaqlizāde’s commentator, al-Āmidī (1900), justi- fies beginning with objection on different grounds than Jurjānī (al- Jaunpūrī 2006) (see sequence 1). Al-Āmidī (1900) makes two points in this regard: First, he notes that objection is the safest move since it does not run the risk of usurpation (ġaṣb). Remember that in raising an objection, the antagonist checks the acceptability of the premises in their opponent's argument without offering an argument themselves. Second, al-Āmidī (1900) observes that it is better to start with objection because it addresses the parts that, when combined, constitute the pro- tagonist’s argument, that is, the premises. He explains that addressing the parts before addressing the whole is the more natural way to pro- ceed (as opposed to beginning by addressing the whole with refutation) Sequencing Critical Moves for an Ethical Argumentation Practice 129 © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. (al-Āmidī 1900, p. 61) since it allows for an agreement that the build- ing blocks of the argument under consideration are worthy of being adopted. Reserving the first slot of sequence 1 for objection was pre- sented by Jurjānī (al-Jaunpūrī 2006) as the weakest move. Reserving the first slot of sequence 3 for objection, however, is better presented as the prudent move. It is prudent both in an ethical sense in that it avoids an argumentative vice and in the sense that it allows for the establishment of a shared agreement on the parts that constitute the ar- gument under consideration to come first. Prescribing the deployment of counter-arguments as the second move, however, is rather surprising. What might be the rationale for doing so? The answer lies in the fact that according to Sāçaqlizāde, the primary role of the antagonist is to reject the protagonist’s claim (al- Āmidī 1900, p. 60). Hence, once some agreement on the premises is reached, the antagonist is to deploy the most effective arsenal at their disposal. From Sāçaqlizāde’s perspective, had the antagonist used ref- utation instead, they would have deployed an arsenal that, even when successful, falls short in fulfilling their primary task. Counter-argu- ment is the most effective mean to perform the antagonist’s role (al- Āmidī 1900, p. 60). This concern for efficacy pervades sequence 3. Objection is the least demanding critical move. All it requires from the antagonist is to probe the acceptability of their opponent’s premises. Although this could be time consuming, and maybe in vain in cases of deep disagreement, this does not make it performatively demanding. Further, and in terms of its efficacy in rejecting the antagonist’s conclusion, a successful objec- tion showing that the protagonist’s premises are unacceptable pulls the rug out from under the protagonist’s argument. Refutation, on the other hand, is highly demanding with little promise in terms of the antagonist fulfilling their primary role. It requires a high level of involvement to anatomize and deconstruct a given argument (Üzelgün et al. 2022), and even when successful, refutation falls short in terms of contesting the protagonist’s claim. Instead, it pushes the protagonist to produce an- other argument for the same conclusion—a new argument for the an- tagonist to address. In contrast, a counter-argument does not require direct engagement with the protagonist’s argument and, if successful, fulfills the task of testing the claim. We can thus represent sequence 3 as: 130 Oruç et al. © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. prudent move→ most-effective move→ least-effective move The organizing principle in this sequence is efficacy in the perfor- mance of the antagonist’s role, which is to reject the protagonist’s claim. With its valorization of efficacy, sequencing 3 might appear to depart from munāẓara’s commitment to cooperation. By placing the most-effective move in the second slot, sequence 3 seems to drive the antagonist into an adversarial stance. The question is how such a stance squares with the promotion of cooperation. The answer lies in the focus on testing the protagonist’s claim and thereby an alternative view of cooperation (Stevens and Cohen 2020; Dulith-Novaes 2021). As in modern (legal) argumentation, the contenders are seen to cooperate precisely by performing their respective roles as effectively as they can: the protagonist's role is to defend the claim, and the antagonist’s role is to contest it. The working assumption here is that when con- tenders effectively perform their respective roles, justice will be served. And the more effective the antagonist is in performing their primary role of rejecting the protagonist’s claim, the better they serve the joint goal. We can thus speak here of an adversarial-cooperation9 between protagonist and antagonist for the sake of manifesting truth/justice. And the value of argumentation that underlies such coop- eration is (performative)-efficacy. This section examined justifications for the three sequences pre- scribed in the munāẓara literature. All sequences express a commit- ment to cooperation in engaging with a protagonist’s claim. They vary in the way in which cooperation is accomplished. The three variations conform to Munāẓara’s goal of manifesting truth/justice and trying to achieve that end via its strict regulatory procedure. What justifies the differences among these variations has been examined based on the values of argumentation underpinning each. Sequence 1 is based on the 9 To dispel any confusion, it is important to note that while ‘coalescence,’ ‘reliabil- ity,’ and ‘efficacy’ correspond to values of argumentation, ‘coalescent,’ ‘reliable,’ and ‘adversarial’ are referred to as the types of cooperation that each sequence pro- motes. As our analysis moved from values to types of cooperation involved in each sequence, we translated the notion of efficacy (in testing the proponent's claim) into adversarial-cooperation. Sequencing Critical Moves for an Ethical Argumentation Practice 131 © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. value of coalescence, and it expresses and promotes coalescent-coop- eration. Sequence 2 is based on the value of reliability, and it expresses and promotes reliable-cooperation. Sequencing 3 is based on the value of efficacy, and it expresses and promotes adversarial-cooperation. In the next section, we discuss the relevance of those values of argumen- tation in relation to both procedural and agential norms. 5. The interdependence of procedure and agent Now that we have extracted the values of argumentation, we can delve into how these values display the interdependence between procedure and agent. To put it simply, albeit in an abstract and not very helpful way, one can articulate this interdependence as follows: On one hand, without agents there is no one to comply with argumentative proce- dures—the agent is a condition for the procedure and hence, the pro- cedure depends on the agent. On the other hand, argumentative proce- dures allow agents to practice argumentation and with practice they internalize the values embodied therein and become better arguers as opposed to being quarrelers. The procedure teaches the agent and hence, the agent depends on the procedure. Our aim in this section is to flesh out this interdependence to understand its dynamics. This is an intricate task and for the purposes of analytic clarity, it serves us to start by indicating that while the elements in the pairs of sequenc- ing/procedure and moves/agent are constitutively related, they are not identical. That is, sequencing and the moves are, respectively, organi- cally linked to procedure and agent. Sequencing is a component of pro- cedure, and critical moves are basically what the agent chooses when playing the role of arguer. Nevertheless, we can neither reduce argu- mentative procedures to sequencing, nor the agent to their role as an arguer. With this in mind, we now elaborate on how the values of ar- gumentation connect with sequencing. This will allow us to expand on the relationship between those values and the arguer, and only then will the interdependence between procedure and agent be accurately con- veyed. Coalescence, reliability, and efficacy underpin sequences 1, 2, and 3 respectively. These values, however, do not merely function on a normative, theoretical level. They are embodied in the respective se- quences. It is precisely the specific arrangement of the antagonist’s critical moves that reflects coalescence, reliability, or efficacy. Values 132 Oruç et al. © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. of argumentation get concretized through sequence preferences. Thus, values of argumentation are embodied in sequencing, and sequences express values of argumentation. This connection between values of argumentation and sequencing helps us discern a two-directional con- nection between those values and the arguer. What exactly is this two- directional connection? Through their choice of critical moves, the arguer implements a se- quence, and in doing so, they realize the value of argumentation em- bodied in that particular sequence. By choosing to begin with objec- tion, then refutation, and then counter-argument, the antagonist in- vokes coalescent-cooperation by opening the communicative space for coalescence. However, and as we will illustrate shortly, in order for the agent to successfully play their part as an arguer and realize the values of argumentation, they need to deploy certain skills, dispositions, and traits. Arguers realize values of argumentation by implementing se- quences, and the implementation of sequences requires the possession of virtues. This is the first direction of the connection between the val- ues of argumentation and the arguer (arguer→ values). Based on this direction of the connection, and since virtues belong to agents and se- quences belong to procedure, we say that the agent is a condition for the procedure and, therefore, the procedure depends on the agent. What about the second direction of that connection, the one that goes from the values of argumentation to the arguer (values→ arguer)? Values of argumentation normatively ground, and are given expression through, a particular sequencing of critical moves. The rationale for recommended sequences is to restrict the choices of the contenders in an argumentative engagement. Values, thus, make normative demands on the arguer—demands that require sticking to the particular roles. In this way, values guide the arguer’s choices by determining when they ought to deploy which critical move. Being so restricted, the arguer gets to develop the virtues required for the implementation of the se- quence in question. As the arguer (in training) repeatedly and over time struggles to comply with a particular sequencing, they internalize the values of argumentation and come to learn the virtues required for im- plementing that sequence. In short, values of argumentation guide speakers in their argumentative choices, transforming them, through practice, into virtuous arguers. This is the second direction of the con- nection between the values of argumentation and the arguer. Based on Sequencing Critical Moves for an Ethical Argumentation Practice 133 © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. this direction of the connection, and since sequences belong to proce- dure and virtues belong to agents, we say that the procedure teaches the agent, and, therefore, the agent depends on the procedure. An illustration of the aspect of virtue is due. In order for the arguer to be able to arrange their critical moves in accordance with the de- mands of a particular sequencing, they need to possess virtues. In the case of sequence 1, for the antagonist to be able to open the communi- cative space that permits and leads the protagonist to reflect on their own premises and reasoning, the antagonist must exhibit some degree of patience and humility. Without these virtues, they may not succeed in sticking to weakest→ stronger→ strongest sequential unfolding when they have at their disposal more effective critical moves. Pa- tience and humility are agential virtues that reveal themselves in the different roles the agent in question occupies—roles such as the ‘ar- guer.’ Further, it is through the recurrent practice of sequence 1 that an antagonist learns how to exhibit patience and humility in their argu- mentative engagements. The same applies to the other two sequences as well. We associate diligence and open-mindedness with sequence 2. In order for the antagonist to implement ‘filtering move→ weak move→ strong move,’ they need to have some degree of diligence and open-mindedness to be able to momentarily bracket acceptability- checking and focus on the inferential reasoning of the protagonist with- out losing their goal of cooperating with rather than working against, the protagonist and hence contribute to reliable-cooperation. Finally, we associate agonism and strategy with sequence 3. The antagonist needs to be capable of executing a course of critical moves ‘prudent move→ most-effective move→ least-effective move’ geared towards rejecting the protagonist’s claim irrespective of how they feel about that claim or what they personally think the meaning of manifesting the truth/justice is—calling upon agonism and strategy as virtues. Without some degree of these virtues, the antagonist might not be able to successfully perform their role and contribute to adversarial-coop- eration. 6. Conclusion Let us take stock. Drawing on munāẓara literature, we introduced the notion of sequencing as a central component of argumentation. In this 134 Oruç et al. © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. literature, the interdependence between procedure and agent was pre- supposed. This can be most clearly seen in how munāẓara scholars conceived of derailments from the procedure as argumentative vices. Encountering that presupposed interdependence motivated us to un- pack it and make it more explicit and systematic. We have, accord- ingly, examined the justifications offered by munāẓara scholars in de- fense of three recommended sequences of the critical moves available to the antagonist. The outcome of our analysis is that each of these sequences represents a different way of advancing cooperation be- tween parties. Sequence 1 advances coalescent-cooperation, sequence 2 advances reliable-cooperation, and sequence 3 advances adversarial- cooperation. These different forms of cooperation are grounded in the values of coalescence, reliability, and efficacy, respectively. Signifi- cantly, these values are embodied in, and expressed by, their corre- sponding sequences. Values of argumentation get concretized pre- cisely in a particular sequencing of moves. We have then argued that values of argumentation subsist in a symbiotic relationship with the arguer. In munāẓara, this relationship is mediated by both sequencing and the virtues. The arguer realizes values of argumentation by imple- menting sequencing, which requires the possession of certain virtues. Values, on the other hand, make normative demands on the arguer, de- mands that get satisfied when the arguer sticks to sequencing, and as they do, they develop the virtues required for implementing that se- quencing. Given that sequencing belongs to procedure and virtues to the agent, the dynamics of the interdependence between procedure and agent is fleshed out. Once we get to see that interdependence, we start recognizing and appreciating the ambiguity between procedure and agent, which, in turn, has normative implications on a theory of argumentation. First, when it comes to appraising sequencing as a central component of ar- gumentation, the neat distinction between procedure-based norms and agent-based norms is transformed into a dynamic interdependence. An evaluative framework that prioritizes one of these norms over the other would be problematically reductive as it would leave out an important aspect of what is being appraised. Second, while virtue argumentation has become increasingly influential, it suffers from not yet being able to get a sufficiently clear notion of agent-based norms and how they Sequencing Critical Moves for an Ethical Argumentation Practice 135 © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. can be scrutinized. Fleshing out the interdependence between proce- dure and agent, we believe, is a promising area of research for virtue argumentation theory to address that deficit. Future work on the devel- opment of a virtue theory of argumentation may thus tap into the fruit- ful interconnections between procedural and agential norms. References Aberdein, Andrew. 2010. Virtue in argument. Argumentation 24(2): 165-79. ———. 2014. In defence of virtue: The legitimacy of agent-based argument appraisal. Informal Logic 34(1): 77-93. Aberdein, Andrew and Daniel H. Cohen. 2016. Introduction: Virtues and ar- guments. Topoi 35(2): 339-43. al-Āmidī, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb. 1900. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ʿalā al-Waladiyyah. Is- tanbul: Dersaadet. al-Dabūsī, ʻAbdallāh Ibn-ʻUmar. 2001. Taqwīm al-adilla fī uṣūl al-fiqh. Bei- rut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmīya. al-Jaunpūrī, ’Abd al-Ras̲ḥīd. 2006. Sharḥ al Rasḥīdīya. Maktabat al-Īmān. al-Samarqandī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad. 1934. Risāla fī Ādāb al-Baḥth. In Al-Badr al-ʿIllāt, ed. Maḥmūd al-Imām al-Manṣūrī. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al- Saʿāda. ———. 2014. Qisṭās al-Afkār fī Taḥqīq al-Asrār. Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Yayınları. Arif, Syamsuddin. 2020. The art of debate in Islam: Textual analysis and translation of Ṭaşköprüzade’s Ādāb al-Baḥth wa al-Munāẓarah. Jurnal Akidah & Pemikiran Islam 22(1): 187-216. Belhaj, Abdessamad. 2016. Ādāb al-Baḥth wa-al-Munāẓara: The neglected art of disputation in later medieval Islam. Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 26(2): 291-307. Biro, John and Harvey Siegel. 2006. In defense of the objective epistemic approach to argumentation. Informal Logic 26(1): 91-101. Blair, J. Anthony. 1998. The limits of the dialogue model of argument. Argu- mentation. 12(2): 325-339. Cevdet Paşa, Ahmet. 1998. Miyâr-ı Sedâd. In Mantık Metinleri 2, ed. Kudred Büyükcoşkun. İstanbul: Ravza. Cohen, Daniel H. and George Miller. 2016. What virtue argumentation the- ory misses: The case of compathetic argumentation. Topoi 35(2): 451-60. Dutilh Novaes, Catarina. 2021. Who’s afraid of adversariality? Conflict and cooperation in argumentation. Topoi 40(5): 873-86. 136 Oruç et al. © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. Eemeren, Frans van and Rob Grootendorst. 2003. A systematic theory of ar- gumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press. Faytre, Leonard Jean Charles. 2018. “Münazara” and the internal dimension of argumentation ethics: A translation and commentary on Ahmed Cevdet’s Adab-i Sedad in the light of Sufism and western argumentation theories. Ibn Haldun University. El-Rouayheb, Khaled. 2015. Islamic intellectual history in the seventeenth century: Scholarly currents in the Ottoman Empire and the Maghreb. Cambridge University Press. Johnson, Ralph H. 2003. The dialectical tier revisited. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, eds. Frans H. Van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Charles A. Willard and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands ———. 2012. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Routledge. Johnson, Ralph Henry and J. Anthony Blair. 2006. Logical self-defense. Idea. (Original work published 1977) Garssen, Bart and Jan Albert van Laar. 2010. A pragma-dialectical response to objectivist epistemic challenges. Informal Logic 30(2): 122-41. Gelenbevī, Ismā‘īl. 1934. Gelenbevī alā Ādāb me’ā Ḥāshiyat. Matbaat al- Saʿāda. Godden, David. 2016. On the priority of agent-based argumentative norms. Topoi 35(2): 345-57. Güney, Adem. 2010. Critical edition of Kemâl al-din Masud b. Husain al- Shirwani’s work titled Sharh Âdâb al-Samarqandi. Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 51. Krabbe, Erik C. W. and Jan Albert van Laar. 2011. The ways of criticism. Argumentation 25(2): 199-227. Laar, Jan Albert van and Erik C. W. Krabbe. 2013. The burden of criticism: Consequences of taking a critical stance. Argumentation 27(2): 201-24. Laar, Jan Albert van. 2001. Ambiguity in a dialectical perspective. Informal Logic 21(3). Lumer, Christoph. 1988. The disputation—a special type of cooperative ar- gumentative dialogue. Argumentation 2(4): 441-64. ———. 2005a. The epistemological theory of argument–how and why? In- formal Logic 25(3): 213-243. ———. 2005b. Introduction: The epistemological approach to argumenta- tion–A map. Informal Logic 25(3): 189-212. Mullā Ḥanafī, Muḥammad. 2014. Sharḥ al-Mullā Ḥanafī. Beirut: Dār al-Ku- tub al-ʻIlmīyah. Sequencing Critical Moves for an Ethical Argumentation Practice 137 © Oruç et al. Informal Logic, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2023), pp. 113–137. Pehlivan, Necmettin and Hadi Ensar Ceylan. 2015. Ādābu’l-Bahs Devrimine Doğru Son Evrim: Burhānuddīn en-Nesefī’nin el-Fusūl’ü. Ankara Ün- iversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 56(2): 1-76. Ṣabbān, Muḥammad. 2014. Ḥāshiya ʿAllāma Ṣabbān. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmīyah. Stevens, Katharina and Daniel Cohen. 2019. The attraction of the ideal has no traction on the real: On adversariality and roles in argument. Argumen- tation and Advocacy 55(1): 1-23. Stevens, Katharina and Daniel H. Cohen. 2020. Angelic devil’s advocates and the forms of adversariality. Topoi. 1-14. Taiai, Maria and Rahmi Oruç. 2021. Uses, motives, functions, and virtues of silence in argumentation in light of Jadal and Ādāb al-Baḥth wa al- Munāẓarah. Afkar-Jurnal Akidah & Pemikiran Islam 23(2): 225-248. Ṭāshkubrīzāde. 2012. Risāla al-Ādāb fī Ādāb al-Baḥth wa al-Munāẓarah. Quwait: Dār al-Ẓāhiriyyah. Üzelgün, Mehmet Ali, Maria Fernandes-Jesus and Önder Küçükural. 2022. Reception of climate activist messages by low-carbon transition actors: Argument evasion in the carbon offsetting debate. Argumentation and Ad- vocacy 58(2): 102-22. Young, Walter Edward. 2017. The dialectical forge, vol. 9. Cham: Springer International Publishing. ———. 2018. Al-Samarqandī’s third Masʾala: Juridical dialectic governed by the Ādāb al-Baḥth. Oriens 46(1-2): 62-128.