Sure! Here is the English translation of the text you provided:
Definition
A rational (logical) discussion is a conversation in which the participants aim to clarify the truth and the most effective course of action. The participants are willing to change their position if presented with sufficient evidence and convincing arguments for a different view.
In a rational discussion, participants strive to understand viewpoints different from their own, recognizing that there are various ways to address the same universal human needs. In fact, the best policies are often found by combining a variety of perspectives and ideas, rather than adopting a one-sided or extreme ideology.
A rational discussion is not a lecture or a one-sided speech. If one side begins to lecture or deliver a monologue, the discussion becomes a “dialogue of the deaf” and a waste of time for both parties.
Preconditions
- Respectful: Are you willing to follow the rules of a respectful discussion?
- Exploration: Do you agree that the goal of the discussion is not to win by asserting your position, but to present arguments and support them with evidence and logical explanations so that everyone can jointly explore which claims are more reasonable and better supported?
- Openness: Can you imagine any evidence or argument that could change your view on the topic? If not, then there is no point in having the discussion, since nothing can change your mind.
- Admitting falsehood: If it is proven to you that one of your arguments is incorrect, and you agree that it is incorrect, will you stop using that argument (not only in this discussion but also elsewhere)? If not, then the discussion is pointless, because clinging to a false claim makes rational discourse impossible.
- Humility: Do you acknowledge that we all have limitations in our ability to know and understand what is true and what is best, and therefore we must act with humility? We all make mistakes, any position or argument could be wrong, and thus we should seek to examine every viewpoint through a respectful, shared dialogue with people who hold diverse and even opposing opinions, in pursuit of the truth. We should admit our mistakes when they become evident.
Rules of Discussion
- Definitions: Any participant in the discussion may request a precise definition of a term that appears in the discussion.
- Precise meaning: As long as the participants have not reached agreement on the meaning of the term, there is no point in continuing to use it, as that would lead to misunderstandings.
- Avoiding ambiguity: It is also possible to agree to drop the use of a term and instead use other, more precise descriptions.
- See also: discussion on precise terminology
- Rational support: Every claim must be supported by evidence and logical explanations.
- The rules of rational discussion do not permit to say that no evidence or proof is needed to support a claim.
- Burden of proof: The burden of proof always lies with the person making a claim, and not with the person who raises skepticism as to why the claim is valid. The rules of rational discussion do not permit to place the burden of disproof on the other party.
- For example: If a person claims that God exists and created the universe, the burden of proof is on that person. It is not in line with rational discussion for the person making this claim to also demand: “Prove the He doesn’t exist”. (Additionally, it is the claimer’s role to define what they actually mean by the term “God”).
- A related idea is the burden of proof in law.
- Logical fallacy: It is a valid move in the discussion to point out a logical fallacy. Then this claim needs to be examined whether such a fallacy indeed exists. If so, the argument relying on this fallacy is invalid.
- One at a time: After introducing a claim in the discussion, it should be fully examined before jumping on to a completely unrelated claim. Otherwise, the discussion will jump from point to point without making any real progress.
- Acknowledge errors: When it is shown that a fact you relied upon is inaccurate, you must not try to deflect the discussion to a new claim. First, you must either accept the new evidence and acknowledge the error in your argument, or explain why the fact you relied upon is indeed accurate.
This is partly based on this source.