What Is at Stake in the Permissivism Debate?

Pre-read session. 

Abstract: Permissivists claim that there is more than one rational response to a given body of evidence.  Impermissivists disagree.  But what is really at stake in this disagreement?  I'd like to suggest that the answer is far from clear.  A certain metaepistemological turn in the debate between permissivists and impermissivists, I'll argue, has reached a kind of impasse.  Indeed, I'll suggest, on at least some views, the disagreement between permissivists and impermissivts has gotten dangerously close to being merely verbal.