Why We Argue is a superb book for students of philosophy, politics, and argumentation. Moreover it is a necessary read for anyone seeking a clear introduction to the ethical importance of well-reasoned public argument. In my ideal world, this text would be required reading for college students and politicians alike. Lawrence Torcello, Rochester Institute of Technology Aikin and Talisse offer a guide to political disagreement and argument that takes seriously both the cognitive health of the individual arguer and the collective health of democratic society. Their clear prose and theoretically engaged analyses of current case studies effectively skewer the argumentative foibles of both the political left and the political right. This lively and engaging book effectively connects the epistemology of argument quality with the political demands of decent democratic life. Harvey Siegel, University of Miami

Robert B. Talisse is Professor of Philosophy and Political Science at Vanderbilt University. Talisse is the editor of the journal, "Public Affairs Quarterly," and is co-host of the podcast, "New Books in Philosophy." He is the author of five books, including "Engaging Political Philosophy: An Introduction" (forthcoming), "Pluralism and Liberal Politics" (Routledge, 2011), and "Democracy and Moral Conflict" (2009), which was a finalist for the 2011 APA Book Prize, and he co-wrote with Scott F. Aikin, "Pragmatism: A Guide for the Perplexed" (2008).

Scott F. Aikin is Senior Lecturer of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University. His previous books include, "Epistemology and the Regress Problem" (Routledge 2010) and "Pragmatism: A Guide for the Perplexed" (with Robert B, Talisse, 2008).

Preface Introduction Part One: A Conception of Argument 1. Why Do We Argue? 2. Why Argument Matters 3. Public Argument in a Democratic Society Part Two: Case Studies in Public Argument 4. The Simple Truth Thesis 5. Pushovers 6. Incredulous Tones 7. The Surprising Truth about Hypocrisy 8. Language, Spin, and Framing 9. Argument Online Conclusion: Civility in Argument