Sixty college students either read a script of a dialog between two individuals holding contrasting positions on the issue of U.S. immigration or read texts containing their two individual position statements on the issue, expressing their same respective views. With this material removed from view, participants expressed in writing their own views on the issue. We asked whether exposure to the dialogic framing would have a greater effect on argumentive thinking, compared to non-dialogic presentation of the same arguments. Essays of the two groups differed in several ways. The dialog group showed greater investment in the task by writing more. Additionally, 78% of the dialog group (vs. 48% of the individual-position control group) made reference to the views they had read, despite no instruction to do so, over half referencing them in a comparative way (vs. 21% of the control group). The substance of the essays showed richer thought by the dialog group, including more "However" clauses (connecting two opposing statements) and more meta-level statements about the issue itself, supporting the hypothesis of a benefit of dialogic framing. Theoretical and educational implications are considered.