Argumentative Document

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Overview

Build a rigorous argumentative document. Starts from a thesis, constructs supporting arguments with evidence, addresses counterarguments honestly, and produces a document where every claim is supported and every objection is handled.

Steps

Step 1: Define the Thesis

1. State as a single, clear, falsifiable claim
2. Distinguish from: topic (too broad), question (not a position), opinion (not argued)
3. Test: can someone disagree? If not, it’s not a thesis.
4. Originality test: is this the most popular/predictable conclusion on this topic? Would someone who had never read commentary reach the same position from the evidence alone? If the thesis is pre-baked — the take everyone already has — find what the evidence actually shows that hasn’t been said.
5. Scope: what does this cover and NOT cover?
6. Stakes: why does this matter?

Step 2: Identify the Audience

1. Who is this for?
2. What do they currently believe?
3. What would convince them?
4. What are their likely objections?
5. What shared premises can you build on?

Step 3: Map the Argument Structure

1. What are the 3-5 main supporting arguments?
2. For each: state as claim, identify evidence, link to thesis
3. Order: strongest first? Build gradually? Address objections inline?
4. Identify dependencies between arguments

Step 4: Gather and Assess Evidence

For each argument:

1. What evidence exists? (data, studies, examples, logic)
2. How strong is each piece?
3. Sufficient to support the claim?
4. Could it be interpreted differently?
5. Are you cherry-picking? What evidence goes against you?

Step 5: Address Counterarguments

1. List every serious counterargument
2. Construct the STRONGEST version of each (steelman)
3. For each: refute, concede, or integrate
   • Refute: show why it fails with evidence
   • Concede: acknowledge, show it doesn’t defeat thesis
   • Integrate: show it supports a modified thesis
4. If a counterargument defeats your thesis, update the thesis.
5. Performed humility check: after writing counterargument sections, delete each “to be sure” / “admittedly” / “of course” paragraph. Is the piece the same or better? If yes, the concession was performance — it existed to look balanced, not to engage honestly. Real concessions change the shape of the argument. Fake ones are padding.

Step 6: Write the Document

1. Introduction: context, thesis, roadmap
2. Background: shared premises, definitions, scope
3. Arguments: each with evidence
4. Counterarguments: honest engagement
5. Synthesis: how arguments combine
6. Conclusion: restate thesis, implications

Standards: every claim has evidence, uncertainty acknowledged, no rhetorical tricks.

Step 7: Verify

1. Thesis stated in one sentence and consistent throughout?
2. Every argument supports the thesis (not a related claim)?
3. Every counterargument addressed?
4. Evidence cited accurately?
5. Would an opponent feel fairly represented?
6. Cached takes check: for each supporting argument, ask — has this exact point appeared in 10,000 other pieces? If yes, either find a fresher argument or acknowledge you’re restating consensus (and explain why it still matters here).
7. Relativistic hedging check: does the piece say “some argue X, others Y, the truth is in between” anywhere? If yes, state exactly WHERE in between and WHY. A position paper that doesn’t take a position is not an argument.

When to Use

• Writing persuasive essays, proposals, position papers
• Building a case for a decision
• Preparing debate arguments

Verification

• Thesis clear, falsifiable, consistent throughout
• 3+ supporting arguments with evidence
• Counterarguments steelmanned and addressed
• No unsupported claims
• Honest about uncertainty
• Thesis is not the most predictable take on this topic (pre-baked thesis check)
• Concession paragraphs do real work — deleting any “to be sure” section doesn’t improve the piece
• No cached takes masquerading as original arguments