A Structured Debate Protocol

This protocol is designed to help participants in a debate or dialogue surface and clarify the underlying layers of disagreement when evaluating a phenomenon, claim, or concept. It addresses common pitfalls where factual, normative, evidentiary, and criterial assumptions are conflated.

1. Define the Claim

What is the specific claim we are evaluating?

Each participant articulates the claim in clear, unambiguous language. If there are multiple interpretations, they are listed explicitly.

2. Clarify Values and Concerns

What values, priorities, or concerns make this claim significant to you?

Each participant explains what stakes they see in the claim.

3. Agree on Standards of Evidence

What kind of evidence would you consider sufficient to support or refute the claim?

Participants articulate their evidentiary expectations explicitly.

4. Specify Criteria

What specific abilities or properties must be demonstrated to count as meeting the claim?

Participants enumerate clear, operational benchmarks or conditions that define success.

Notes on Facilitation

• Avoid conflating descriptive (factual) claims with normative (value) judgments.
• Explicitly surface and acknowledge differing priorities: practical vs. conceptual, etc.
• Use curiosity rather than confrontation to explore why others hold different standards or criteria.
• Document agreed definitions and points of divergence for future reference.

Goal: Transform apparent factual disputes into clear, structured discussions that considerately acknowledge underlying conceptual and normative differences, reducing talking past each other.