Their K of democratic deliberation rests on the assumptions they criticize—for instance, the case for structural antagonism or the impossibility of consensus presupposes that rational argument is possible. Our framework energizes the arena for interdependent reasoning—we do this by defending consensus is possible, but fallible. This means using the resolution to affirm the debate-to-be-had that is this topic—the point is not to settle which way of debating is objectively best, but to use provisional rules for reciprocal clash—that process of dialogismuniquely activates critical thinking and reflexivity
