jskherman · March 9, 2026 00:42
diff --git a/debate_argument_framework.txt b/debate_argument_framework.txt
 # ARGUMENT FRAMEWORK

 ═══════════════════════════════════════════
 ## I. INTRODUCTION — SETUP
 ═══════════════════════════════════════════

 Motion:        "This house [should/believes/would]..."
 Stance:        FOR or AGAINST
 Status Quo:    What is the current state of affairs? What exists today
               that the motion seeks to change or preserve?
 Burden:        What must this side prove to win? What is the minimum
               the audience needs to believe for the stance to hold?

 ### Framing

  Context:
    - Background and history the audience needs
    - Stakeholders: who is affected and in what capacity?
    - Scope: macro-level (systemic/structural) and
      micro-level (individual/lived experience) dimensions

  Definitions / Operationalizations:
    - Pin down every contested, technical, or ambiguous term
    - State what the motion does NOT cover (scope exclusions)

  Evaluation Criteria / Yardsticks:
    - By what standard(s) should we judge whether the motion
      succeeds or fails? (e.g., fairness, welfare, rights,
      efficiency, feasibility)
    - Rank or weight criteria if more than one

  Shared Assumptions & First Principles:
    - Premises both sides would rationally accept
    - Flag any that are genuinely contestable — don't smuggle
      controversial claims in as axioms

 ═══════════════════════════════════════════
 ## II. BODY — CASE CONSTRUCTION
 ═══════════════════════════════════════════

 Repeat the block below for each argument (A1, A2, ... An).
 Arguments should be independently standing (non-sequitur to
 each other) but collectively build toward the stance.


 ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
 │ ARGUMENT Ak: [LABEL]                    │
 │ A concise, catchy label that captures   │
 │ the proposition in ≤ 6 words.           │
 ├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
 │                                         │
 │  Claim:                                 │
 │    One-sentence thesis for this         │
 │    argument.                            │
 │                                         │
 │  How? (Mechanism):                      │
 │    The causal chain / logical pathway   │
 │    by which the claim operates.         │
 │    "Through what process does this      │
 │    happen?"                             │
 │                                         │
 │  Why? (Reasoning):                      │
 │    Why should we believe the mechanism  │
 │    is sound? Why does this matter to    │
 │    the motion and stance specifically?  │
 │                                         │
 │  So What? (Impact):                     │
 │    - Magnitude:  How severe/beneficial? │
 │    - Scope:      How many affected?     │
 │    - Probability: How likely?           │
 │    - On whom?:   Map to stakeholders    │
 │                                         │
 │  Evidence:                              │
 │    Concrete proof — pick the best type: │
 │    • Empirical data / statistics        │
 │    • Real-world case study / example    │
 │    • Analogy to accepted situation      │
 │    • Expert testimony / authority       │
 │    Explain how the evidence supports    │
 │    the claim, not just that it exists.  │
 │                                         │
 │  [Depth Layers — repeat as needed]:     │
 │    Nested Why → How → So What →         │
 │    Evidence chains for sub-claims       │
 │    that need further support.           │
 │                                         │
 │  Preemptive Rebuttal:                   │
 │    - Strongest likely objection to Ak   │
 │    - Direct response to that objection  │
 │                                         │
 │  Tie-Back:                              │
 │    Restate [LABEL]. Explicitly link     │
 │    back to stance + motion. Use the     │
 │    label to trigger primacy/recency.    │
 │                                         │
 └─────────────────────────────────────────┘


 Sign-posting between arguments:
  Use explicit transitions ("Having shown X, I now turn to
  an independent reason Y...") so the audience always knows
  where they are in the structure.

 ═══════════════════════════════════════════
 ## III. WEIGHING & COMPARISON
 ═══════════════════════════════════════════

  Status Quo vs. Proposed World:
    - What concretely changes if the motion passes vs. fails?
    - Net benefit/harm comparison across stakeholders

  Argument Prioritization:
    - Which argument carries the most weight and why?
    - If forced to choose, which single argument is sufficient
      to uphold the stance?

  Trade-off Acknowledgment:
    - What does the stance concede or sacrifice?
    - Why is the trade-off acceptable given the evaluation
      criteria declared in the Introduction?

 ═══════════════════════════════════════════
 ## IV. CONCLUSION & SUMMARY
 ═══════════════════════════════════════════

  Callbacks:
    - Reference every labeled argument (A1 label, A2 label...)
    - Arrange callbacks in the most digestible order for the
      audience (chronological, causal, thematic, or by
      ascending impact)

  Standalone Summary:
    - A reader who sees ONLY the conclusion should understand
      the full case in miniature

  Hooks to Body:
    - Create curiosity or motivation to revisit the detailed
      arguments

  Final Anchor:
    - The single most memorable sentence of the entire piece
    - This is the last thing the audience hears — make it count
	# ARGUMENT FRAMEWORK

	═══════════════════════════════════════════
	## I. INTRODUCTION — SETUP
	═══════════════════════════════════════════

	Motion: "This house [should/believes/would]..."
	Stance: FOR or AGAINST
	Status Quo: What is the current state of affairs? What exists today
	that the motion seeks to change or preserve?
	Burden: What must this side prove to win? What is the minimum
	the audience needs to believe for the stance to hold?

	### Framing

	Context:
	- Background and history the audience needs
	- Stakeholders: who is affected and in what capacity?
	- Scope: macro-level (systemic/structural) and
	micro-level (individual/lived experience) dimensions

	Definitions / Operationalizations:
	- Pin down every contested, technical, or ambiguous term
	- State what the motion does NOT cover (scope exclusions)

	Evaluation Criteria / Yardsticks:
	- By what standard(s) should we judge whether the motion
	succeeds or fails? (e.g., fairness, welfare, rights,
	efficiency, feasibility)
	- Rank or weight criteria if more than one

	Shared Assumptions & First Principles:
	- Premises both sides would rationally accept
	- Flag any that are genuinely contestable — don't smuggle
	controversial claims in as axioms

	═══════════════════════════════════════════
	## II. BODY — CASE CONSTRUCTION
	═══════════════════════════════════════════

	Repeat the block below for each argument (A1, A2, ... An).
	Arguments should be independently standing (non-sequitur to
	each other) but collectively build toward the stance.


	┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
	│ ARGUMENT Ak: [LABEL] │
	│ A concise, catchy label that captures │
	│ the proposition in ≤ 6 words. │
	├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
	│ │
	│ Claim: │
	│ One-sentence thesis for this │
	│ argument. │
	│ │
	│ How? (Mechanism): │
	│ The causal chain / logical pathway │
	│ by which the claim operates. │
	│ "Through what process does this │
	│ happen?" │
	│ │
	│ Why? (Reasoning): │
	│ Why should we believe the mechanism │
	│ is sound? Why does this matter to │
	│ the motion and stance specifically? │
	│ │
	│ So What? (Impact): │
	│ - Magnitude: How severe/beneficial? │
	│ - Scope: How many affected? │
	│ - Probability: How likely? │
	│ - On whom?: Map to stakeholders │
	│ │
	│ Evidence: │
	│ Concrete proof — pick the best type: │
	│ • Empirical data / statistics │
	│ • Real-world case study / example │
	│ • Analogy to accepted situation │
	│ • Expert testimony / authority │
	│ Explain how the evidence supports │
	│ the claim, not just that it exists. │
	│ │
	│ [Depth Layers — repeat as needed]: │
	│ Nested Why → How → So What → │
	│ Evidence chains for sub-claims │
	│ that need further support. │
	│ │
	│ Preemptive Rebuttal: │
	│ - Strongest likely objection to Ak │
	│ - Direct response to that objection │
	│ │
	│ Tie-Back: │
	│ Restate [LABEL]. Explicitly link │
	│ back to stance + motion. Use the │
	│ label to trigger primacy/recency. │
	│ │
	└─────────────────────────────────────────┘


	Sign-posting between arguments:
	Use explicit transitions ("Having shown X, I now turn to
	an independent reason Y...") so the audience always knows
	where they are in the structure.

	═══════════════════════════════════════════
	## III. WEIGHING & COMPARISON
	═══════════════════════════════════════════

	Status Quo vs. Proposed World:
	- What concretely changes if the motion passes vs. fails?
	- Net benefit/harm comparison across stakeholders

	Argument Prioritization:
	- Which argument carries the most weight and why?
	- If forced to choose, which single argument is sufficient
	to uphold the stance?

	Trade-off Acknowledgment:
	- What does the stance concede or sacrifice?
	- Why is the trade-off acceptable given the evaluation
	criteria declared in the Introduction?

	═══════════════════════════════════════════
	## IV. CONCLUSION & SUMMARY
	═══════════════════════════════════════════

	Callbacks:
	- Reference every labeled argument (A1 label, A2 label...)
	- Arrange callbacks in the most digestible order for the
	audience (chronological, causal, thematic, or by
	ascending impact)

	Standalone Summary:
	- A reader who sees ONLY the conclusion should understand
	the full case in miniature

	Hooks to Body:
	- Create curiosity or motivation to revisit the detailed
	arguments

	Final Anchor:
	- The single most memorable sentence of the entire piece
	- This is the last thing the audience hears — make it count
No results found