Political Argument Construction and Defence
8 weeks · 0 milestones
Construct a structured written argument (minimum 1,000 words) on a contested political question — a real policy debate or institutional design issue, not a textbook scenario. State and defend a position with evidence; acknowledge and respond to the strongest objection. Proof is the argument plus a documented adversarial exchange: your interlocutor (a political scientist, policy practitioner, or equivalent) poses at least three specific objections to your reasoning; your written responses to each are recorded and submitted alongside the original argument. The exchange — not the essay alone — is the proof standard for this outcome.
Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Select a genuinely contested political question — democratic vs. technocratic decision-making, the justification for civil disobedience, the limits of free speech, the basis of legitimate political authority, or the justice of specific redistributive policies — and construct a formal political argument. The argument must: state a specific position, ground it in political theory (name the tradition or theorist), cite real evidence where the argument is partly empirical, anticipate the strongest counter-argument, and explain why the position holds despite it.
Proof required
Political argument document (700+ words) covering: a specific position on a contested political question, the theoretical grounding (named tradition or theorist), at least two cited evidence sources where the argument is empirical, the strongest counter-argument, and a response explaining why the position holds.
What gets checked
- Position is specific enough to be argued for and potentially contested
- Theoretical grounding names a specific political tradition or theorist — not generic 'political theory says'
- Strongest counter-argument is identified and genuinely addressed