argue-against-me

# Argue Against Me A structured devil's advocate for academic arguments. State your thesis, and Claude will systematically challenge it across formal debate rounds — drawing from historiographical traditions or disciplinary counter-positions — then deliver a scorecard, a stronger revised thesis, and suggestions for filling evidence gaps. ## When to Use - You're developing an argument and want to find its weak points before a reviewer does - You want to test whether your evidence actually supports your claim - You need to anticipate objections for a paper, dissertation chapter, or conference presentation - You want to explore how your thesis looks from a specific intellectual tradition - You're stuck and want an adversarial conversation to sharpen your thinking ## Arguments All arguments are optional. | Argument | Values | Default | |----------|--------|---------| | `intensity` | `gentle`, `firm`, `ruthless` | `firm` | | `rounds` | any integer | `3` | | `school` | free text (e.g., "revisionist", "Marxist historiography", "postcolonial") | auto-selected: strongest opposing tradition for humanities; strongest disciplinary counter-position otherwise | ### Intensity Levels **gentle** — Points out gaps and asks probing questions. Challenges weak evidence and logical gaps. Good for early-stage ideas you're still forming. **firm** — Direct challenges with counterevidence. Challenges all claims, methodology, and source selection. The default — appropriate for arguments you believe are solid. **ruthless** — Assumes nothing is established. Attacks everything including framing, definitions, periodization, and unstated assumptions. Use when preparing for hostile peer review or defending a controversial thesis. ## How It Works ### Starting a Debate After invoking the skill, state your thesis. Optionally provide: - Supporting evidence or sources - The context (paper, dissertation, conference talk) - Any specific concerns you want tested ### Round Structure Each round follows this cycle: ``` Round N of M ───────────── 1. YOU: State or defend your position 2. CLAUDE: Attack (challenge the argument) 3. YOU: Rebut 4. CLAUDE: Per-round assessment (brief verdict before next round) ``` **Round 1 is special.** Claude's opening attack will: - Declare the opposing school or lens it's adopting, and why it's the strongest counter-position - Identify the 2-3 strongest lines of attack against your thesis **Subsequent rounds** build on the exchange. Claude escalates, introduces new counterevidence, or shifts angle when you successfully rebut a point. Claude does not repeat defeated arguments. ### Mid-Debate Commands At any point during the debate, you can say: - **extend** — add more rounds beyond the original count - **resolve** — end the debate early and skip to the closing output - **concede [point]** — acknowledge a specific point to narrow the remaining debate ### Closing Output After the final round (or when you say `resolve`), Claude produces three things: #### 1. Scorecard A table assessing each claim you made: | Claim | Held? | Strength (1-5) | Notes | |-------|-------|-----------------|-------| | ... | ✓/✗/△ | ... | ... | - ✓ = held up under challenge - ✗ = dismantled - △ = partially held (survived with qualifications) Strength is scored using the rubric in `references/scoring_rubric.md`. Followed by an overall verdict paragraph. #### 2. Revised Thesis A rewritten version of your original thesis that: - Drops claims that were dismantled - Adds qualifications where you made partial concessions - Preserves what survived intact - Notes what changed and why #### 3. Bibliography Gaps Specific suggestions for strengthening your argument: - Sources you'd need to address the counterarguments raised - Primary sources that could fill evidentiary gaps - Methodological frameworks that could shore up weak points - Where relevant, suggests using other skills to find sources: - Library catalogs (Columbia CLIO, Harvard, HathiTrust, LOC, NLB Singapore) - Biographical databases (CBDB, JBDB) - Wikidata for linked data and identifiers - arXiv for relevant preprints - Zotero for managing found references ## Best Practices - **State your thesis clearly up front.** A vague thesis produces vague attacks. The more specific your claim, the more useful the challenge. - **Bring your evidence.** If you have sources, cite them. Claude will attack the evidence, not just the logic — but only if you provide it. - **Don't concede too easily.** The skill is most useful when you genuinely defend your position. Push back. - **Use `ruthless` before submission.** If your argument survives ruthless intensity, it's ready for peer review. - **Try different schools.** Run the same thesis against multiple traditions to find blind spots you didn't expect. ## Example ``` User: /argue-against-me intensity=firm rounds=3 My thesis: The Song dynasty's commercial revolution (960-1279) was primarily driven by state policy — particularly the monetization reforms and the relaxation of market regulations — rather than by endogenous economic forces or technological change. I'm supporting this with evidence from the expansion of government-issued currency, the abolition of the ward-market system, and state investment in canal infrastructure. ``` Claude would: 1. Select an opposing lens (likely quantitative/cliometric or world-systems theory) 2. Attack the state-primacy framing — e.g., arguing that demographic growth, iron production advances, and Southeast Asian trade networks preceded and enabled state reforms 3. Challenge the evidence — e.g., questioning whether currency expansion was state-led or a response to existing commercial demand 4. Run 3 rounds of structured debate 5. Produce scorecard, revised thesis, and bibliography gaps