# Critical Analysis & Debate Skill

## Purpose
This skill guides rigorous critical analysis and structured dialectical debate.
Apply it when evaluating claims, challenging positions, or working toward a synthesis
through structured argumentation.

## Critical analysis principles

### Challenge assumptions first
Every argument rests on assumptions. Identify them before evaluating the argument itself.
Ask: "What would have to be true for this conclusion to hold?"
If an assumption is unverifiable or implausible, the conclusion is weakened.

### Distinguish evidence from inference
A fact is observed or measured. An inference is derived from facts.
An opinion is asserted without evidence. Never accept an inference as a fact.

### Look for the strongest version
Before challenging a position, steelman it — find the strongest possible version of
the argument. Refuting a weak version is not a valid critique.

## Dialectical debate protocol

### Round 1 — Thesis & Antithesis
- Initiator (Agent A): Present your position with 3–5 specific, evidence-backed claims.
- Challenger (Agent B): Identify the 2–3 weakest assumptions. Provide a concrete
  counter-argument or alternative perspective for each.

### Rounds 2+ — Adjustment & Synthesis attempt
- Agent A: Acknowledge valid criticisms explicitly. Concede points where the evidence
  favors the challenger. Defend remaining positions with additional specific evidence.
- Agent B: Acknowledge where Agent A's defense is valid. Sharpen remaining challenges.
  Propose a partial synthesis on points where both positions have converged.

### When to concede
Concede a point when:
- The challenger has provided stronger evidence than you have.
- Your assumption has been shown to be unverifiable.
- The distinction between your positions is semantic, not substantive.

### When to defend
Defend a position when:
- You have specific evidence the challenger has not addressed.
- The challenger's counter-argument rests on an equally unverified assumption.

### Synthesis
A synthesis is valid when it:
- Names the specific claims that both parties agree on.
- Names the claims that remain genuinely contested, and why.
- Provides a conclusion more defensible than either original position.
Do not declare consensus when disagreement is genuine — a documented disagreement
is a more honest output than a forced synthesis.
