[
  {"id":"library-hours","title":"Library hours: answer the staffing objection","skill":"Trade-offs","motion":"The library should run a trial of later evening hours.","claim":"Later hours could help people who finish work after the current closing time.","objection":"Keeping the library open later means paying staff. We should not promise a service we cannot fund.","target":"The objection challenges feasibility, not whether access matters.","choices":[{"reply":"Anyone opposing later hours does not care about working people.","kind":"Misses the objection","why":"This assigns a motive instead of answering the staffing cost. A person can value access and disagree about funding."},{"reply":"The cost concern is real. Start with one late evening for a fixed trial, set a staffing budget before launch, and compare use with the cost before deciding to continue.","kind":"Addresses the objection","why":"This concedes the constraint, narrows the proposal and identifies a decision test. It is still a plan, not evidence that the trial will be affordable or popular."},{"reply":"Libraries make every town better, so later hours will definitely pay for themselves.","kind":"Adds an unsupported claim","why":"A general benefit does not establish that this extension recovers its cost. The guarantee needs evidence that the scenario does not provide."}],"revision":"I agree that access alone does not settle staffing costs. I support a capped trial of one late evening, with the budget agreed first. We would need staff availability, projected cost and actual evening attendance before choosing a permanent change.","check":"Obtain a local staffing estimate and define what level of use would justify the expense.","next":"What trial budget and attendance threshold would both sides accept?"},
  {"id":"club-survey","title":"Club poll: separate popularity from a representative sample","skill":"Evidence","motion":"The club should move all meetings to Friday.","claim":"Eight of the ten people who answered our optional poll prefer Friday, so Friday is best for the whole club.","objection":"Members who cannot attend Friday may have ignored the poll. We do not know whether the respondents represent everyone.","target":"The gap is the jump from ten self-selected responses to the entire membership.","choices":[{"reply":"Eight out of ten is a clear majority, so there is nothing else to discuss.","kind":"Repeats the gap","why":"The arithmetic can be correct while the inference is too broad. The objection concerns who answered, not how many of those answers favored Friday."},{"reply":"No survey can ever tell us anything useful.","kind":"Overcorrects","why":"Uncertain representativeness does not make the responses worthless. They show the preferences of those respondents, with a limit on generalization."},{"reply":"The poll shows strong Friday support among respondents. Before changing every meeting, ask all members about availability and check whether nonrespondents face a different constraint.","kind":"Addresses the objection","why":"This preserves the observation, reduces its scope and asks for information that could change the decision."}],"revision":"The poll supports Friday among the ten respondents, not necessarily the whole club. I would send an availability check to the membership and offer one Friday trial before moving every meeting. We should compare who can attend, not just which day wins a poll.","check":"Record invitations, responses and availability constraints; do not treat missing responses as support.","next":"What attendance trade-off would justify moving the meeting?"},
  {"id":"study-room","title":"Study room: challenge the causal link","skill":"Causation","motion":"Our group should book the quiet study room every week.","claim":"Our practice scores rose after we used the room, so the room caused the improvement.","objection":"We also changed tutors that week. The room may have helped, but the scores alone do not separate those changes.","target":"Two changes happened together. The conclusion attributes the result to only one.","choices":[{"reply":"The timing suggests the room may help, but it does not isolate its effect. Keep the tutor and practice routine similar while trying comparable sessions in each setting.","kind":"Addresses the objection","why":"This replaces certainty with a testable possibility and proposes a comparison that reduces one competing explanation. It does not promise a perfectly controlled experiment."},{"reply":"The tutor definitely caused the improvement instead.","kind":"Swaps one unsupported cause for another","why":"The objection identifies a possible alternative, not proof of that alternative. A different confident story still lacks a comparison."},{"reply":"Quiet rooms feel more academic, which proves the scores came from the room.","kind":"Misses the evidence gap","why":"A feeling about the room does not isolate a causal effect on practice scores."}],"revision":"The improvement is consistent with the room helping, but the tutor change is a competing explanation. I support testing the room while keeping the tutor and routine similar, and comparing comparable practice sessions. Until then, the claim should be that the room might help.","check":"Use comparable tasks, note other changes and decide in advance what outcome to compare.","next":"What result would make us stop booking the room?"},
  {"id":"ai-feedback","title":"AI feedback: preserve the critic's actual claim","skill":"Relevance","motion":"The debate club should allow AI feedback on practice drafts.","claim":"AI feedback can give members another perspective before a practice round.","objection":"Members may trust an AI criticism without checking whether it accurately describes their argument.","target":"The concern is uncritical reliance, not a demand to ban every use of technology.","choices":[{"reply":"You want to ban all technology and go back to paper.","kind":"Changes the opposing claim","why":"The objection is about checking feedback. Expanding it into a blanket ban makes an easier target that the person did not defend."},{"reply":"That risk deserves a rule: keep the original draft, ask for the passage behind each criticism, and treat the feedback as a suggestion the member can accept or reject with reasons.","kind":"Addresses the objection","why":"This answers the reliance concern with a review process. Matching a passage still does not establish that the AI's interpretation is correct."},{"reply":"AI is more objective than people, so its feedback should always be accepted.","kind":"Adds an unsupported guarantee","why":"Neither objectivity nor accuracy follows merely from being an AI system. The reply dismisses the precise failure the critic raised."}],"revision":"You are concerned about trusting feedback that misreads a draft. I agree that members should check it. I support optional AI feedback if members keep the draft, inspect the relevant passage and explain their own revision decision. The member remains responsible for the reasoning.","check":"Compare each criticism with the exact passage and look for alternative interpretations.","next":"What feedback would you reject even if it sounded confident?"},
  {"id":"meeting-speed","title":"Meeting rules: identify a value disagreement","skill":"Values","motion":"The committee should shorten public speaking turns.","claim":"Shorter turns will help us finish meetings on time.","objection":"Finishing quickly is not our only goal. People need enough time to explain concerns that affect them.","target":"The disagreement concerns the weight given to efficiency and participation, not only the meeting's duration.","choices":[{"reply":"If the meeting is shorter, it is better by definition.","kind":"Assumes the disputed priority","why":"This treats efficiency as the only value while that assumption is exactly what the other person challenges."},{"reply":"You are right that a shorter meeting can still exclude important explanations. I would compare the time saved with whether people can state their concerns, and consider a second turn for unresolved points.","kind":"Addresses the objection","why":"This makes both values visible and offers a design to evaluate. It does not establish that a shorter turn is fair in every setting."},{"reply":"Everyone should speak for as long as they want, regardless of other attendees.","kind":"Avoids the trade-off","why":"Unlimited turns can displace other speakers. Rejecting efficiency entirely does not resolve the participation concern for everyone."}],"revision":"You are asking whether faster meetings leave people enough room to be heard. I agree that finishing on time is not sufficient. I would test shorter initial turns with a second turn for unresolved concerns, then review both total duration and whether speakers could explain their issue.","check":"Ask speakers about adequacy of time and track whether more people can contribute, alongside duration.","next":"What would count as enough time to explain a concern?"},
  {"id":"bike-rack","title":"Bike racks: narrow an overbroad conclusion","skill":"Scope","motion":"Every venue should replace all car spaces with bicycle racks.","claim":"A bike rack used less space than a car space at our last event, so every venue should remove all car parking.","objection":"That example does not address people who cannot cycle, deliveries or venues with different transport access.","target":"A local space comparison has been stretched into a universal replacement policy.","choices":[{"reply":"One event proves the policy works everywhere.","kind":"Repeats the overreach","why":"The objection is about generalization. Restating confidence in the example does not supply evidence about other venues or access needs."},{"reply":"The example supports adding bicycle capacity at that venue. A broader change should preserve accessible arrival options and check travel patterns and delivery needs at each site.","kind":"Addresses the objection","why":"This retains the relevant space insight while reducing the claim to what the example can support and identifying omitted constraints."},{"reply":"Since one person might need a car, bicycle racks can never be useful.","kind":"Overcorrects","why":"An exception defeats an absolute replacement claim without defeating every smaller bicycle-access proposal."}],"revision":"The event suggests that bicycle racks can provide useful capacity there. It does not justify removing every car space at every venue. I support a site-specific proposal that checks travel patterns, deliveries and access needs before choosing which spaces to change.","check":"Collect site-specific arrival needs and protect access options before proposing a layout.","next":"Which spaces could change without removing necessary access?"}
]