Argumentation Framework

This document defines the logical tags used throughout the repository to categorize different types of arguments and reasoning.

Tag Types

📘 Descriptive

Purpose: Marks content that describes facts, situations, concepts, or current states of affairs without making normative claims.

Characteristics:

• Presents information about what is rather than what ought to be
• Documents observable phenomena, historical events, or accepted knowledge
• Provides context and background for arguments
• Does not assert moral judgments or prescriptive conclusions

Example: “Throughout history, societies have organized themselves into hierarchical structures with systems of governance and law.”

Just to re-iterate, this is not the author advocated for or against the statement being made. It is as simple as looking out of your window, seeing a tree, and proclaiming “There is a tree outside my window”. No moral or preferential argument has been made. This is not the same as:

• I like that there is a tree
• We should have more trees
• I hate trees
• I wish we could cut this tree down
• I wish this was a different species of tree
• We should make trees extinct

It is important to elaborate this, because in debates I see this almost every time. A descriptive statement is not a prescriptive statement.

📊 Empirical

Purpose: Indicates content based on scientific evidence, research findings, statistical data, or observable measurements.

Characteristics:

• References scientific studies, experiments, or data
• Cites measurable or testable phenomena
• Draws from peer-reviewed research or established scientific consensus
• Can be verified through observation or experimentation

Example: “Studies show that individuals who engage in regular physical exercise demonstrate improved cognitive function and reduced rates of depression.”

“🖼️ Illustrative Example

Purpose: Marks hypothetical scenarios, thought experiments, or specific examples used to clarify or demonstrate a concept.

Characteristics:

• Provides concrete instances to illustrate abstract principles
• May use hypothetical or real-world scenarios
• Helps readers understand implications of arguments
• Makes theoretical concepts more tangible

Example: “Imagine a society where resources are distributed based on merit rather than need, and consider how this might affect social cohesion.”

🔗 Inference

Purpose: Marks logical conclusions drawn from premises, evidence, or previous arguments.

Characteristics:

• Represents the logical endpoint of a chain of reasoning
• Derives new claims from established premises or evidence
• Shows the result of applying logical operations to inputs
• Often uses words like “therefore,” “thus,” “it follows that,” “we must conclude”

Example: “Therefore, if we accept that freedom requires the absence of coercion, and that laws necessarily involve coercion, it follows that absolute freedom is incompatible with any legal system.”

🧠 Implicit Assumptions

Purpose: Identifies unstated assumptions, hidden premises, or background beliefs that underlie an argument but are not explicitly stated. It is often the case that we simply don’t have enough time to debate every single aspect of a topic, as such we must take a shortcut by stating some implicit assumptions to be agreed upon at the start.

It is not necessary to state every single layer down to the epistemology of human existence. Only enough to try to ward off obvious and distracting whataboutisms

Characteristics:

• Highlights assumptions that the argument depends on but doesn’t explicitly state
• Points to cultural, philosophical, or contextual presuppositions
• May reveal potential weaknesses or areas for challenge in an argument
• Often represents commonly held beliefs that the author takes for granted
• Does not necessarily mean the author endorses or supports the assumption

Example: An argument about justice might implicitly assume that humans have free will, or that equality of outcome is morally superior to equality of opportunity.

⚔️ Rebuttal

Purpose: Marks counterarguments or objections that challenge a claim, premise, or line of reasoning.

Characteristics:

• Directly challenges or refutes a previous argument or claim
• Presents alternative interpretations or contradictory evidence
• Identifies flaws in reasoning or logical inconsistencies
• May introduce competing frameworks or perspectives
• Often uses phrases like “however,” “but,” “on the contrary,” “this fails to account for”

Example: “However, this argument overlooks the fact that historical hierarchies were often maintained through force rather than merit, suggesting that their existence doesn’t necessarily validate their moral legitimacy.”

🏛️ Pillar

In addition to the inline tags above, particularly crucial pillars of an argument will be highlighted using a special callout block. This is useful for foundational claims that are central to multiple arguments throughout the document.

Usage:

Characteristics:

• Should contain premises or arguments that, if questioned, could fundamentally alter the argument structure
• Can contain axioms, core principles, or essential definitions
• Can be a culmination of multiple premises that together form a foundational claim

💡 Important Conclusion Callout

Similar to the premise callout, you can highlight particularly significant conclusions using a special callout block. This is useful for emphasizing the key takeaways or final inferences from complex chains of reasoning.

Usage:

Characteristics:

• Used to emphasize major conclusions that result from extensive argumentation
• Draws reader attention to the ultimate inferences or synthesized positions
• Should contain conclusions that represent the culmination of significant reasoning

🚩 Checkpoint Callout

Checkpoints serve as intermediate steps in an argument’s progression, marking important logical milestones between premises and final conclusions. They help readers track the development of complex reasoning by highlighting key intermediate conclusions.

Usage:

Characteristics:

• Represents a logical “stepping stone” between initial premises and final conclusions
• Helps break down complex arguments into more manageable segments
• Provides clarity in multi-step reasoning processes