Summary: Defeasible argumentation is concerned with studying plausible but, at the same time, fallible patterns of reasoning. Because plausible arguments can easily be developed, and not all of them can be in force at the same time, the main thrust of the theory is in deriving sound principles for adjudicating among conflicting lines of argumentation. In this paper, we propose to resolve such conflicts by starting an artificial debate. The explanatory notes will consist of a short introduction to `traditional' defeasible argumentation, followed by a brief exposition of the basic ideas of what is called formal defeasible dialectics here. The paper will be concluded by proving the traditional and dialectic approach to be equivalent.