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

Argument Types (Appeal Types)

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

Argument Strength Self-Assessment Matrix