A specialized skill that systematically provides the Toulmin argument model, evidence type classification, and rebuttal strategies for debate argumentation. Used by pro-debater and con-debater agents to construct robust arguments and effectively rebut opposing claims. Automatically applied in contexts such as 'argumentation structure', 'Toulmin model', 'argument construction', 'rebuttal strategy', 'evidence types', 'argument strengthening'. However, legal advocacy and academic paper argumentation structure are outside the scope of this skill.
A specialized skill that enhances the pro-debater and con-debater agents' argumentation capabilities.
[Data/Evidence] --> Therefore --> [Claim]
(Data) | (Claim)
|
[Warrant] [Qualifier]
(Warrant) "generally," "may"
|
[Backing] [Rebuttal]
(Backing) (Rebuttal)
Warrant's support Exceptions/counterexamples
| 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" |
| 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 |
[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
Challenge the opponent's data or assumptions directly:
Break the logical connection from data to claim:
Present specific cases that refute the claim:
Argue that costs/side effects outweigh the benefits:
Present an alternative better than the opponent's approach:
| 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?" |
| 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 |