revfactory Argumentation Framework — Argument Construction Framework
A specialized skill that enhances the pro-debater and con-debater agents' argumentation capabilities.
Target Agents
- pro-debater — Pro argument construction, rebuttal preparation
- con-debater — Con argument construction, alternative proposals
Toulmin Argument Model
6-Element Structure
[Data/Evidence] --> Therefore --> [Claim]
(Data) | (Claim)
|
[Warrant] [Qualifier]
(Warrant) "generally," "may"
|
[Backing] [Rebuttal]
(Backing) (Rebuttal)
Warrant's support Exceptions/counterexamples
Element Descriptions
| Element | Role | Example (Resolution: "Remote work should be expanded") |
|---|---|---|
| Claim | Statement to be proven | "Remote work should be expanded" |
| Data | Facts supporting the claim | "Remote workers' productivity was 13% higher (Stanford, 2015)" |
| Warrant | Logical bridge from data to claim | "Because productivity gains increase corporate competitiveness" |
| Backing | Additional support for the warrant | "OECD reports identify productivity as the key driver of GDP growth" |
| Qualifier | Adjusts claim strength | "For most knowledge-work occupations" |
| Rebuttal | Acknowledges exceptions/counterarguments | "Excluding manufacturing where on-site work is essential" |
Argument Types (Appeal Types)
| Type | Description | Effective Use | Caution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Logos | Logic, data, statistics | Policy debates, analytical topics | Guard against data distortion |
| Ethos | Credibility, authority | Expert citations, institutional reports | Guard against authority abuse |
| Pathos | Emotion, empathy | Social issues, value debates | Guard against emotional manipulation |
| Kairos | Timeliness, relevance | Current events | Guard against urgency exaggeration |
Evidence Types and Strength
Evidence Pyramid (by strength)
[Meta-analysis / Systematic Review]
Strongest
/ \
[Experimental Studies] [Large-Scale Surveys]
Quantitative causal Quantitative correlational
/ \ / \
[Case Studies] [Expert Opinion] [Statistical Data] [Analogy]
Qualitative Authority Descriptive Explanatory
Evidence Quality Checklist
- Is the source clearly identified? (Author, institution, year)
- Is it peer-reviewed research?
- Is the sample size sufficient?
- Is the data recent? (Within 5 years recommended)
- Is the context appropriate for the current resolution?
- Is correlation being mistaken for causation?
5-Type Rebuttal Strategies
Type 1: Attacking Premises
Challenge the opponent's data or assumptions directly:
- "That study had a sample of only 50 people"
- "That data is from 2015 and the context has changed"
Type 2: Attacking Logic
Break the logical connection from data to claim:
- "Productivity gains do not necessarily justify expansion"
- "Correlation does not imply causation"
Type 3: Counter-Example
Present specific cases that refute the claim:
- "Yahoo saw improved performance after eliminating remote work"
Type 4: Cost-Benefit Attack
Argue that costs/side effects outweigh the benefits:
- "Productivity may rise, but organizational culture damage and isolation are even greater costs"
Type 5: Counter-Proposal
Present an alternative better than the opponent's approach:
- "Instead of expanding remote work, a hybrid model is more effective"
Cross-Examination Question Design
Question Types
| Type | Purpose | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Clarification | Demand specificity on vague claims | "Exactly what scope of remote work are you referring to?" |
| Trap | Lead to contradiction | "Then should jobs where productivity drops also go remote?" |
| Dilemma | Either answer is disadvantageous | "If A, then [problem]; if B, then [problem]. Which is it?" |
| Evidence challenge | Attack data reliability | "What population was sampled in that study?" |
Argument Strength Self-Assessment Matrix
| Criterion | 1 pt (Weak) | 3 pts (Average) | 5 pts (Strong) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence quality | Personal opinion | News/reports | Academic research |
| Logical connection | Contains leaps | Generally logical | Airtight |
| Rebuttal resistance | Easily rebutted | Partially rebuttable | Hard to rebut |
| Originality | Common argument | New perspective | Original framework |