Argument and evidence

Draws the claim, the reasons under it, and the objections against them, so you can see which reason it all rests on.

You have had the same argument with the same person six times. Each round you both bring the same three points, and each round it ends in the same place. Nobody is lying and nobody is confused about the facts. You just have no shared picture of which point is holding up the conclusion, so every round you defend all three at once and settle none of them.

Argument and evidence draws a claim, the reasons offered for it, and what sits underneath each reason. A reason with something under it and a reason with nothing under it are different objects, and in conversation they sound identical. The form separates them by geometry. Support points up at the thing it supports. An objection points in and stops. What you get is not a verdict. It is a picture of where the weight is sitting and where the floor is missing.

It has four renderers. An argument map is boxes and lines: claim on top, reasons below, objections attached to the one reason each attacks. An issue map puts an open question at the top instead of a claim, so each candidate answer hangs beneath it with its own supporters and challengers. A Toulmin layout adds the piece most arguments leave out, the warrant, which is the unstated rule that lets the data count as a reason for the claim. An evidence table drops the geometry: claims down the side, sources across the top, what each source actually gives in the cell.

Reach for it when a disagreement keeps restarting, or when you are about to commit to something on the strength of an argument you have only ever heard out loud. It is weak on quantity and weak on time. An arrow says that one thing supports another. It cannot say by how much, and it cannot say that the support was solid in March and gone by June. If your question is how much or when, this is the wrong family.