 Under the influence of al-Fārābī, Ibn Rushd puts emphasis on the need to introduce dialectic as a method (ṭarīq), a set of rules, techniques, and warnings (Ben Ahmed 2020a, 262–7). This conception of dialectic makes it distinct from both demonstration and sophistical reasoning, as well as from ordinary conversations. When used well, dialectic is a communal enterprise and so again different from other arts, such as demonstration, where there is no need for more than one party. A successful “partnership” in dialectic is one where each party does their best to commit themselves to the rules. From this perspective, it becomes evident that the questioner is not simply an adversary seeking to defeat his opponent, but rather a partner and a collaborator with the respondent in the search for knowledge. Any debate that is motivated by the pursuit of victory or by deriving pleasure from defeating one’s opponent is a debate that cannot fall under the method of dialectic. He writes, “the communal enterprise (al-ʿamal al-mushtarak) can be achieved in its utmost perfection only by both partners. They can have something in common when their aim is the assessment and the deduction of the truth, or the realization of their training. Thus, the respondent should perfect his response if he intends that aim, because the basest of the partners is the one who aims at the obstruction of the communal enterprise. But if their aim is to struggle against and defeat the other, then they will have nothing in common…. This is not the method of dialectic” (ParaTop 8.132D {233}; Ben Ahmed 2020a, 267)