<p>In response to mounting political polarisation and a weakening of civic discourse, there is growing recognition—both in Australia and internationally—of the need to cultivate empathy, perspective-taking, and ethical engagement with difference. This paper argues that subject English is uniquely positioned to support these aims, not only due to its mandated curricular status, but also through its long-standing civic mission to foster democratic citizenship. Drawing on Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism, the paper distinguishes between monologic and dialogic forms of argumentation, framing the latter as more responsive to democratic imperatives. This paper considers the writing curriculum—specifically argumentation and point-of-view composition—as a critical site for developing dialogic dispositions. Taking the Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) English curriculum as a case study, it investigates the affordances of curriculum in fostering dialogic negotiation of conflict rather than adversarial persuasion and a finalised stance. Findings suggest that although the official curriculum may signal opportunities for dialogic engagement, high-stakes assessment structures that do not reward discursive responses may create pressure to teach for monologic writing. The paper further argues that due to the narrowing of curriculum under high-stakes assessments, this emphasis is likely to shape classroom practices in K-12 English, producing a hidden curriculum that marginalises dialogic point-of-view writing, as well as broader dialogic genres such as mediation and reconciliation. The paper concludes by offering a vision of argumentation that centres practices of listening, reflection and openness to difference.</p>