Home > Page Design > Topic Template
Topic: [Topic Name]
Definition: [One neutral sentence. No advocacy. Example: "A carbon tax is a fee imposed on the burning of carbon-based fuels."]
Scope: [What lives here vs. neighboring topics. Example: "Covers economy-wide carbon pricing. Sector-specific schemes (EV mandates, methane fees) live on their own pages."]
Audit lock. Every numeric score on this page is computed from linked argument and evidence nodes. Nothing here is hand-entered. If a score looks wrong, fix the underlying node, not the display. See
Truth and
ReasonRank.
What This Page Is For
One canonical home for everything anyone has argued about this topic. Arguments are scored by evidence quality, linked to the claims they support or undermine, and updated automatically when new data arrives. The rebuttal to any bad argument on this page is always one click away. See One Page Per Topic.
1. The Position Spectrum (Negative ↔ Positive)
Where do beliefs about this topic sit on the direction of support? This dimension captures direction only. How extreme the phrasing is, and how far someone is willing to go to act on the belief, are tracked in sections 2 and 3. See Positivity Spectrum.
| Position | Belief Held at This Position | Top Sub-Argument Driving the Score | Belief Score | Evidence |
|---|
−100%
Strongly Oppose |
[Belief at this position. Example: "A carbon tax is regressive and crushes working families."] |
[Atomic argument label. Example: "disproportionate burden on low-income households"] |
[−XX] |
[link to Evidence Ledger row] |
−50%
Skeptical |
[Belief at this position. Example: "A carbon tax might work in theory but won't survive political capture."] |
[Atomic argument label. Example: "exemption-riddled in practice"] |
[−XX] |
[link] |
0%
Mixed / Conditional |
[Belief at this position. Example: "A carbon tax works only if revenue is rebated and borders are adjusted."] |
[Atomic argument label. Example: "depends on revenue recycling design"] |
[0] |
[link] |
+50%
Supportive |
[Belief at this position. Example: "A carbon tax is the cheapest way to cut emissions at scale."] |
[Atomic argument label. Example: "lower abatement cost than mandates"] |
[+XX] |
[link] |
+100%
Strongly Support |
[Belief at this position. Example: "A carbon tax is a moral necessity given the cost of inaction."] |
[Atomic argument label. Example: "intergenerational duty to limit warming"] |
[+XX] |
[link] |
Reading the table. The Position column is a coordinate, not a verdict. The Belief Score is the verdict, computed from linked sub-arguments. A position can be widely held (lots of people sit at +50%) and still have a low Belief Score, because what people believe and what survives evidence are different questions.
2. The Evidence Ledger
The raw inputs every Belief Score on this page traces back to. Quality scores reflect methodology, sample size, and reproducibility. Ten independent sources confirming one finding raise that finding's Truth Score; they do not create ten arguments. Corroboration is rewarded. Repetition is not. See Duplication Scores.
| T | Source | ↑↓ | Argument It Bears On | Quality | Linkage |
|---|
| T1 |
[Source. Example: "Metcalf & Stock (2020), AER"] |
+ |
[Argument supported. Example: "carbon taxes reduce emissions in countries that implement them"] |
95% |
+0.90 |
| T2 |
[Source. Example: "World Bank Carbon Pricing Dashboard (2024)"] |
+ |
[Argument supported. Example: "carbon pricing is now in force across 25% of global emissions"] |
85% |
+0.70 |
| T2 |
[Source. Example: "CBO distributional analysis (2023)"] |
− |
[Argument weakened. Example: "carbon tax is regressive without rebate"] |
80% |
+0.85 |
| T3 |
[Source. Example: "Industry trade group white paper"] |
− |
[Argument weakened. Example: "carbon tax causes leakage to non-pricing jurisdictions"] |
45% |
+0.55 |
Legend. T = evidence tier (T1 peer-reviewed, T2 reputable institution, T3 secondary, T4 anecdotal). ↑↓ = supports (+) or weakens (−) the linked argument. Quality = methodological strength of the evidence itself. Linkage = how directly this evidence bears on the specific argument it's attached to (see Linkage Scores).
3. Claim Magnitude (Weak ↔ Strong)
How extreme is the phrasing of a claim, independent of which direction it runs and independent of whether it's true? A weak pro claim and a weak anti claim are both modest assertions. The Belief Score, computed elsewhere, tells you how well-supported a claim is. This dimension just identifies its structural reach so equivalent claims can be matched and grouped. See Magnitude Spectrum.
| Magnitude | Pro-Topic Example | Anti-Topic Example | Scope |
|---|
Weak (20%)
Hedged |
"A carbon tax can be a useful tool in some cases." |
"A carbon tax may not be the best tool here." |
Narrow. Acknowledges exceptions. |
Moderate (50%)
Standard |
"A carbon tax is the most cost-effective way to cut emissions." |
"A carbon tax fails to deliver the cuts its supporters claim." |
Definite but bounded. Most defensible level. |
Strong (80%)
Categorical |
"A carbon tax is fundamentally the right approach to climate policy." |
"A carbon tax is fundamentally the wrong approach to climate policy." |
Wide. Little room for exceptions. |
Extreme (100%)
Maximal |
"A carbon tax is the only way to save the planet." |
"A carbon tax is a totalitarian power grab dressed up as climate policy." |
Catastrophic framing, no limits. Easy to dismiss. |
Why this matters. The strongest real arguments on either side typically operate at Moderate magnitude. Engaging only with the Extreme version of an opposing claim is a straw man. The platform requires engaging the best version of the opposing argument, not the loudest.
4. Civic Escalation (Preference ↔ Any Means)
How many other principles is someone willing to violate to advance this belief? This is the other meaning of "strength of conviction": not how extreme is the claim (section 3), but what limits does the believer accept on acting. Thomas More held the most absolute possible conviction Henry VIII was wrong and chose silent execution rather than act outside legal process. Martin Luther King held an equally total conviction and chose to openly violate unjust laws while accepting the consequences. Both are coherent positions. See Escalation Spectrum.
| Level | What It Looks Like | Historical Example | Principles Still Honored |
|---|
1. Preference
Slight lean |
Would vote for it if convenient. Won't reorder priorities to advance it. |
Most voters on most issues most of the time. |
All other principles intact. |
2. Active Advocacy
Engaged supporter |
Votes, donates, signs petitions, argues publicly. |
Standard civic participation. |
Operates fully within legal and social norms. |
3. Principled Non-Compliance
Conscientious objector |
Refuses personal participation in what they see as unjust, at cost to themselves. Does not obstruct others. |
Thomas More refused to endorse Henry VIII's break with Rome and accepted execution rather than act outside legal process. |
Sacrifices self. Will not act against others. |
4. Civil Disobedience
Principled lawbreaking |
Openly breaks specific laws judged unjust. Accepts legal consequences. Uses trial as moral leverage. |
Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement; Gandhi's Salt March; Thoreau's tax refusal. |
Violates specific laws. Accepts the legal system's authority to punish. |
5. Resistance
Active disruption |
Breaks laws and rejects the legitimacy of the resulting punishment. Distinguishes legality from justice. |
Underground Railroad operators; resistance movements in occupied Europe. |
Rejects specific laws as illegitimate. Avoids harm to uninvolved parties. |
6. Any Means Necessary
No limiting principles |
Willing to harm others, violate any norm, or destroy any institution to advance the cause. |
Revolutionary violence and political terrorism, found across the entire political spectrum. |
No other principle outranks this belief. |
The three coordinates are independent. Someone can hold a moderate-magnitude claim (section 3 = 50%) about a cause they feel lukewarm about (section 1 = +40%) and still go to prison for it (section 4 = Level 4). Or hold an extreme claim (section 3 = 100%) about something they care deeply about (section 1 = +100%) and still refuse to act outside the law (section 4 = Level 2). Plotting a coordinate on each spectrum is what lets the system match beliefs accurately rather than bundling very different positions together.
Your position on the spectrum in section 1 depends on deeper assumptions about reality, values, and causation. This table maps those dependencies from worldview down to topic-specific claim.
Key Insight: [One sentence naming the real disagreement under the visible disagreement. Example: "Most disagreements about carbon taxes are really disagreements about whether markets or regulation are more trustworthy."]
| To Hold Position | You Must Believe These Assumptions (General → Specific) |
|---|
| −100% to −50% |
1. Worldview: [Example: "Government action causes more problems than it solves."]
2. Political philosophy: [Example: "Markets self-correct better than regulators do."]
3. Causal model: [Example: "Pricing carbon shifts costs without changing behavior."]
4. Topic-specific: [Example: "A carbon tax will be captured by lobbyists and riddled with exemptions."]
5. Specific claim: [Example: "The 2018 French gilets jaunes protests prove carbon taxes are politically unworkable."] |
| −50% to −20% |
1. Worldview: [Example]
2. Values: [Example]
3. Causal beliefs: [Example]
4. Topic-specific: [Example] |
| −20% to +20% |
1. Acknowledges complexity: [Example]
2. Both sides have valid points: [Example]
3. Context matters: [Example]
4. Implementation determines outcome: [Example] |
| +20% to +50% |
1. Worldview: [Example]
2. Values: [Example]
3. Causal beliefs: [Example]
4. Topic-specific: [Example] |
| +50% to +100% |
1. Worldview: [Example: "Markets fail to price externalities and need correction."]
2. Political philosophy: [Example: "Pigovian taxes are the textbook fix for negative externalities."]
3. Causal model: [Example: "Higher prices reduce consumption."]
4. Topic-specific: [Example: "A carbon tax cuts emissions at lower cost than mandates."]
5. Specific claim: [Example: "British Columbia's revenue-neutral carbon tax cut emissions without slowing growth."] |
6. The Abstraction Ladder (General ↔ Specific)
The same upstream worldview can generate dozens of downstream policy positions. Tracing the chain makes explicit what is actually being argued about. See General to Specific.
| Level | Pro-Topic Chain | Anti-Topic Chain |
|---|
| Worldview |
[Example: "Markets fail to price externalities."] |
[Example: "Government intervention distorts more than it fixes."] |
| ↓ |
↓ |
↓ |
| Political principle |
[Example: "Negative externalities should be priced in."] |
[Example: "Tax policy should not be used as social engineering."] |
| ↓ |
↓ |
↓ |
| Position on this topic |
[Example: "A carbon tax is the right tool here." (+50% to +100%)] |
[Example: "A carbon tax is the wrong tool here." (−50% to −100%)] |
| ↓ |
↓ |
↓ |
| Specific policy |
[Example: "Pass a $50/ton federal carbon tax with full revenue rebate."] |
[Example: "Block any federal carbon pricing legislation."] |
Most policy disagreements are not disagreements about facts. They are disagreements about which values take priority when values conflict. This table makes the priorities on both sides explicit, including the gap between advertised values and motivations critics attribute.
| Values Supporting This Topic | Values Opposing This Topic |
|---|
Advertised:
1. [Example: "Stewardship of future generations."]
2. [Example: "Economic efficiency."]
Actual (per critics):
1. [Example: "Expansion of federal taxing authority."]
2. [Example: "Subsidies for politically favored industries."] |
Advertised:
1. [Example: "Protection of working-class household budgets."]
2. [Example: "Limited government."]
Actual (per critics):
1. [Example: "Protection of fossil fuel industry profits."]
2. [Example: "Denial of climate science."] |
Solutions that address both sides' core concerns are more durable than victories. Compromise positions belong here.
| What Both Sides Might Agree On | Possible Compromise Positions |
|---|
1. [Example: "Climate change is real and warrants response."]
2. [Example: "Working families should not bear the cost of climate policy."]
3. [Example: "Energy reliability matters."] |
1. [Example: "Revenue-neutral carbon tax with full rebate to households."]
2. [Example: "Border carbon adjustment to prevent leakage."]
3. [Example: "Five-year pilot in one region with sunset clause."] |
9. Best Media and Resources
Curated sources sorted by direction and informational value. The same three coordinates from sections 1, 3, and 4 apply to media: where does this source sit on direction, magnitude, and escalation? See Media Framework.
| Title | Medium | Bias / Tone | Direction | Magnitude | Escalation | Key Insight |
|---|
| [Example: "Climate Shock by Wagner & Weitzman"] |
Book |
Academic |
+70% |
60% |
2 |
[One sentence. Example: "Frames climate policy as insurance against tail risk, not point-estimate cost-benefit."] |
| [Example: "Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger"] |
Book |
Polemic |
−60% |
80% |
2 |
[One sentence. Example: "Argues climate response has been hijacked by anti-growth ideology."] |
10. Related Topics
| Broader (Parents) | Narrower (Children) | Adjacent (Siblings) |
|---|
| [Parent topic 1], [Parent topic 2] |
[Child topic 1], [Child topic 2] |
[Sibling topic 1], [Sibling topic 2] |
Contribute
Contact me to add beliefs, strengthen arguments, or link new evidence. GitHub for technical implementation and scoring algorithms.
Related design pages: One Page Per Belief, One Page Per Topic, Duplication Scores, Independence Scores, Grouping Similar Phrasings, Grouping by Sub-Topic.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.