Learn the moves that make disagreement harder to test.
Each card shows the pattern, a sample twist, and a stronger way to return to the real point.
Criticize Claims, Not People. Ask yourself: what would change my mind?
Debate Skills
Good debate is more than avoiding mistakes. These skills help turn disagreement into clearer understanding.
These are not fallacies. These are positive reasoning practices.
Separate The Claim From The Source
Check who said it. Then check what supports it.
Source quality matters because provenance, expertise, incentives, methods, and track record can affect confidence. But the source alone does not automatically make a claim true or false.
Prompt
If we set the source's reputation aside for a moment, what evidence actually supports the claim?
Then
Now bring the source back in. Does its provenance change how much confidence the evidence deserves?
Source credibility affects confidence. Evidence determines what the source actually supports.
Match Confidence To Evidence
Say only as much as the evidence supports.
"Possible," "supported," "well-supported," and "established by the cited record" do not mean the same thing. Stronger conclusions require stronger evidence.
Prompt
How confident should we be, and what evidence justifies that level of confidence?
Unknown — The available record does not establish an answer.
Possible — The explanation remains plausible but is not established.
Supported — Relevant evidence points toward it.
Well-Supported — Multiple strong pieces of evidence converge.
Established by the Cited Record — The cited record directly supports the specific proposition under test.
"Established by the Cited Record" is not universal or permanent truth. New evidence can change the conclusion.
These are not citizen reputation scores or percentages.
Separate Evidence From Interpretation
First ask what happened. Then ask what it means.
Two people can agree on the same document, quote, number, event, or observation and still disagree about what it means.
What part of the underlying record do both sides agree exists?
Where does the interpretation begin?
What additional evidence would help distinguish between the competing interpretations?
Disagreement about meaning does not automatically mean disagreement about the underlying record.
State Their Strongest Point
Answer the argument they would recognize as their own.
Before criticizing a position, state its strongest relevant version fairly enough that the other person could say, "Yes, that is what I mean."
Prompt
Can you restate their point in a way they would accept before answering it?
Goodwill Check
Did you preserve their actual claim, reason, scope, and uncertainty?
Goodwill does not require agreement. It requires giving the argument a fair test.
Concede What Holds
One valid point does not settle the whole argument.
You can acknowledge a fact, correction, limitation, or strong point without accepting every conclusion attached to it.
Form
"You're right about [specific point]. I still disagree about [remaining issue] because [reason]."
Prompt
What part can you grant without pretending the remaining disagreement disappeared?
A concession makes the disagreement more precise.
Check What The Number Measures
Precision is not the same as accuracy.
A precise number can still answer the wrong question. Check the numerator, denominator, population, time window, comparison group, assumptions, and source before drawing a conclusion.
What exactly was measured?
Who or what is included?
What time period does it cover?
What comparison is being made?
Does this number actually measure the claim being discussed?
Example
A total is divided by a population to produce a precise per-person figure.
Before using that figure as evidence of individual benefit or cost, ask whether the money is actually distributed that way and whether the denominator matches the population affected.
A calculation can be mathematically correct and still be the wrong measurement for the claim.
A Better Debate Loop
State the ClaimWhat exactly are we trying to establish?
Identify the Claim TypeIs it factual, causal, predictive, definitional, normative, a proposal, procedural, or interpretive?
Find the RecordWhat observation, document, source, number, quote, or event are we working from?
Separate Evidence From InterpretationWhat does the record directly show, and what are we inferring from it?
Match Confidence to EvidenceIs the answer established, supported, possible, disputed, or still Unknown?
Find What HoldsWhat can both sides reasonably agree on?
Isolate the Real DisagreementWhat specific claim, assumption, interpretation, value, or prediction still separates the positions?
Test That PartWhat evidence supports each interpretation?
Ask What Would Change the ConclusionWhat evidence would make either side update?
Preserve UnknownIf the evidence does not settle it, leave it open.
You do not have to end in agreement.
You should end with a clearer understanding of what is known, what is disputed, what remains Unknown, and what evidence would change the conclusion.
What Kind of Claim Is This?
Different claims require different kinds of answers.
Factual
"X happened." Ask: What evidence shows it happened?
Causal
"X caused Y." Ask: What connects X to Y beyond timing or correlation?
Predictive
"X will cause Y." Ask: What evidence supports the prediction, and how certain is it?
Definitional
"X counts as Y." Ask: What definition is being used, and is it consistent?
Normative
"We should do X." Ask: What values, goals, tradeoffs, or consequences support that choice?
Proposal
"I want X changed." Ask: What problem is the proposal trying to solve, and why is this approach preferred?
Procedural
"The process requires X." Ask: What rule, policy, law, or published procedure establishes that requirement?
Interpretive
"This evidence means X." Ask: What connects the evidence to that interpretation, and what competing interpretations fit the record?
Do not demand factual proof for a value judgment, and do not treat a factual claim as established merely because the proposed outcome is desirable.
Fallacy Cards
They replace your real point with a weaker or more extreme version, then argue against that instead.
Quick Example
Your point: I want a background check before a gun sale because a wait can stop a bad day.
The twist: So you want to take everyone’s guns.
Stronger reply: That swaps a pre-sale wait for a total ban. I asked for a background check before a gun sale — answer the check, not “take everyone’s guns.”
They redirect to someone else's conduct instead of answering the current point.
Quick Example
Your point: The President skipped Congress on that.
The twist: What about the last President and the same hallway?
Stronger reply: Last President’s hallway may matter for consistency, but that comparison does not by itself answer this skip. First: did this skip of Congress happen, and was it proper?
A feeling is treated as if it settles the factual or logical point by itself.
Quick Example
Your point: Abortion should stay legal.
The twist: If you cared you would feel what I feel.
Stronger reply: Caring deeply can matter, but matching feelings does not settle whether abortion stays legal. What is the reason for or against that legal claim?
They jump from one step to a dramatic outcome without showing the steps in between.
Quick Example
Your point: Kids who grew up here should have a path.
The twist: One path and the border vanishes overnight — no B or C.
Stronger reply: Path → border-vanishes skips B and C. Answer the path for kids who grew up here without the overnight leap.
One or a few examples are stretched into a broad conclusion without enough support.
Quick Example
Your point: ICE should focus on people with violent convictions.
The twist: One raid went badly, so every focus plan is cruelty.
Stronger reply: One bad raid does not make every focus plan cruelty. Answer violent-conviction focus on its own terms.
Popularity is used as proof instead of evidence for the claim itself.
Quick Example
Your point: The President skipped Congress on that.
The twist: Nobody serious still cares — crowd claim.
Stronger reply: “Nobody serious cares” is crowd cover. Answer whether that skip of Congress happened — seriousness is not the record.
A related but different topic pulls the discussion away from the claim that needs an answer.
Quick Example
Your point: I want a background check before a gun sale.
The twist: Checks sound fair — so let’s start with the school-board mixer snacks.
Stronger reply: Mixer snacks do not settle a gun-sale check. Answer the background check — snacks are another thread.
The reason simply repeats the claim in different words, so no new support is added.
Quick Example
Your point: The President skipped Congress on that.
The twist: It’s bad because it’s a bad skip.
Stronger reply: Bad-because-bad-skip is a circle. Name what made the skip improper — floor vote, rule, or record — not the label alone.
A counterexample is dismissed by redefining the group so the example no longer counts.
Quick Example
Your point: ICE should focus on people with violent convictions.
The twist: No real conservative would say that. Then one does. Fake conservative.
Stronger reply: Labeling the counterexample “fake conservative” dodges the focus claim. Answer violent-conviction focus — don’t redefine them out of the group.
Someone makes a claim, then demands that the other person disprove it instead of supporting it.
Quick Example
Your point: Kids who grew up here should have a path.
The twist: Prove a path never caused a mess.
Stronger reply: Prove-never-mess sets an impossible universal negative. Support the path for kids who grew up here with the reasons that path needs — not a never-caused-mess certificate.
Two things happen together or in sequence, and that timing is treated as proof that one caused the other.
Quick Example
Your point: Flock helps find stolen cars.
The twist: They signed the plate-camera contract then theft reports dipped, so Flock did it.
Stronger reply: Contract-then-dip is not proof Flock caused the dip. Answer whether Flock helps find stolen cars with find evidence — not timing alone.
A strong claim is advanced, then replaced with a safer claim when challenged, and later treated as if the strong claim survived.
Quick Example
Your point: Open the border completely.
The twist: Kids who grew up here should have a path.
Stronger reply: Completely-open-border Bailey shrank to a path for kids who grew up here. Keep those as different claims — do not sell Motte path as Bailey open-border.
The discussion is pulled so far from the original claim that the new topic cannot meaningfully answer it.
Quick Example
Your point: Data centers shouldn’t drain our drinking water.
The twist: What’s your stance on the space program before we talk gallons?
Stronger reply: Space-program stance is not gallons. Answer drinking-water drain for these halls — space can wait.
A claim is accepted or rejected only because of where it came from instead of what the evidence shows.
Quick Example
Your point: I want a background check before a gun sale — here is the clerk page.
The twist: That site is trash media — end of story.
Stronger reply: Calling the site trash media can raise a credibility check, but source label alone does not close the clerk page. Answer the background-check claim on the page’s facts.
A possible motive is treated as proof that the claim itself is false.
Quick Example
Your point: I want a background check before a gun sale.
The twist: You sell training classes, so the check is a hustle.
Stronger reply: Training-class sales can raise a credibility check, but motive alone is not the rebuttal. Answer a background check before a gun sale on the wait claim.
The source or speaker is attacked in advance so their evidence can be dismissed without being examined.
Quick Example
Your point: Here is the Flock map.
The twist: Major outlets are the programming machine — anything they print is cooked.
Stronger reply: Concerns about major outlets can be checked, but pre-cooking “anything they print” does not replace reading the map. Read the Flock map — then dispute placement.
"You did it too" is used to dodge the current question. Why it matters: another person's mistake does not answer this proposal. Distinction: a comparison can be relevant when it tests consistency, precedent, or equal treatment. It becomes a diversion (tu quoque / whataboutism) when it substitutes for answering the point on the table.
Quick Example
You: This border plan has no review date. Twist: Your party skipped review dates too, so stop asking. What's wrong: it changes who must answer instead of answering the plan. Ask yourself: Did they answer this plan, or only change who must answer? Relevant comparison would ask whether the same review rule applies evenly — then still answer this plan.
Not Proven Either Way. A claim is treated as true because it has not been disproven, or false because it has not been proven. A missing answer does not automatically establish the opposite answer. If the available evidence does not settle the claim, "Unknown" can be the correct state. Repair: Not proven is not the same as false, and not disproven is not the same as true. What evidence would move this out of Unknown? Distinction: This does not mean every unresolved claim is equally plausible. Available evidence can support one explanation more strongly than another without establishing certainty.
Quick Example
Claim: "No one has proved that happened." Bad move: "Then it definitely didn't happen." Better: "If the evidence does not establish whether it happened, leave it Unknown and identify what evidence would resolve it."
Wanting The Outcome To Decide The Fact. A factual claim is accepted or rejected because its consequences would be desirable, frightening, unfair, or inconvenient rather than because the evidence establishes it. Consequences can matter greatly when deciding what policy to choose. They do not, by themselves, determine whether a factual claim is true. Repair: That consequence may matter. First separate the factual question from what we should do about it. What evidence supports the factual claim? Distinction: Do not flag discussion of consequences when the actual question is normative or policy-based, such as "Should we adopt this policy?" Consequences are directly relevant to those questions.
Quick Example
Claim: "The report says the program costs more than projected." Bad move: "That can't be right because canceling the program would hurt people." Better: "The possible harm from canceling it matters to the policy decision. It does not tell us whether the cost figure is accurate."
Question With An Assumption Built In. A question contains an important disputed assumption and pressures the other person to answer as though that assumption has already been established. Separate the embedded claim from the question. Test the claim first. Repair: That question assumes something we have not established yet. First determine whether the embedded claim happened, then ask the follow-up question. Important: Do not infer whether someone actually lied. "Lie" requires more than showing that a statement was incorrect.
Quick Example
Question: "Why did the official lie about the report?" Better: "First, what evidence shows the statement was false and knowingly made? If that is established, then motive can be discussed separately."
Answering The Easy Version. Instead of addressing the strongest relevant argument, someone selects a weak example, poor source, or easy argument from the other side and responds as though the broader case has been answered. Defeating a weak argument does not automatically defeat stronger arguments for the same conclusion. Repair: That may answer this example. Does it also answer the strongest version of the actual argument? Distinction from Straw Man: Straw Man changes a person's actual claim into a weaker or more extreme version. Weak-Man Reply selects an easier argument or example and treats defeating it as though the stronger case was defeated. Distinction from Cherry-Picking: Cherry-Picking selectively presents favorable evidence. Weak-Man Reply selectively attacks the easiest opposing argument.
Quick Example
Several reasons are offered for a conclusion. One relies on a poor source. The reply attacks only that source and treats the entire conclusion as resolved. Better: "That source may be weak. Set it aside and test the remaining evidence separately."
No Possible Test. A claim may be framed so that no possible observation could count against it. Not every meaningful belief is empirically testable. But if a claim is being offered as an evidence-based factual conclusion, participants should be able to ask what evidence could count against it. Primary prompt: What observation or evidence would show this claim might be mistaken? If the answer is "Nothing": This claim may not be resolvable through evidence in its current form. Clarify whether it is a factual, philosophical, metaphysical, moral, or personal-belief claim before continuing. Repair: What part of this claim can actually be tested, and what evidence would change the conclusion? Important: An unfalsifiable claim is not automatically false. Philosophical, moral, religious, metaphysical, or personal beliefs are not defective merely because they cannot be empirically falsified. Testability determines what kind of evidentiary conclusion can be drawn, not whether a person is allowed to hold the belief.
Quick Example
Ask: "What observation or evidence would show this claim might be mistaken?" If nothing could count against it, clarify the claim type before treating it as an evidence-based factual conclusion.
Reconnecting…Paused while this tab was in the background, resuming…Couldn't reconnect
Trying again automatically. Resuming…Reload the page to start a fresh connection.
