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.”

⚡ Important Premise Callout

In addition to the inline tags above, you can highlight particularly crucial premises using a special callout block. This is useful for foundational claims that are central to multiple arguments throughout the document.

Usage:

<div class="important-premise">
<p>The outside observer is unable to externally define what would improve any specific individual person's subjective experience of reality.</p>
</div>

Characteristics:

Visually distinct block-level element with prominent styling
Used sparingly for the most critical foundational premises
Draws reader attention to claims that underpin major arguments
Should contain premises that, if questioned, would fundamentally alter the argument structure

💡 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:

<div class="important-conclusion">
<p>Therefore, any system of governance must balance individual liberty with collective welfare, recognizing that absolute freedom is neither achievable nor desirable in a functioning society.</p>
</div>

Characteristics:

Visually distinct block-level element with purple-themed styling
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
Best placed at the end of major argument sections or at the document’s conclusion

Using These Tags

These tags help readers:

Track the structure of complex arguments
Distinguish between different types of claims
Evaluate the strength of reasoning by identifying which elements are empirical vs. assumed
Follow the logical flow from premises to conclusions

When reading a document with these tags, pay attention to:

Whether empirical claims are properly supported
Whether premises are reasonable or need questioning
Whether inferences logically follow from their inputs
Whether examples genuinely illustrate the points they claim to support