Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Construct a formal political argument on a contested political question
4 weeks
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
Common mistakes
- Selecting a question where there is empirical consensus — the question must involve genuine reasonable disagreement
- Grounding in political theory without explaining how the theory supports the specific position
- Choosing a weak counter-argument while avoiding the strongest one
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Check theoretical grounding — confirm a specific tradition or theorist is named and their position explained
- Verify cited evidence sources are real
- Review counter-argument — confirm it is the strongest available case against the position
Engage with empirical evidence and theoretical objections to the argument
3 weeks
Extend the M1 argument by engaging with at least two objections from different theoretical traditions (not just empirical objections to empirical claims, but theoretical objections to the normative framework). For each objection: state it in its strongest form, explain why it seems compelling from within that tradition, and explain how the argument responds — either by grounding a fundamental disagreement, demonstrating that the objection is less compelling than it appears, or conceding a boundary condition.
Proof required
Objection-response document (400+ words) presenting at least two theoretical objections from named traditions with their strongest formulations, explaining why each seems compelling, and responding — including at least one boundary condition concession or fundamental-disagreement acknowledgment.
What gets checked
- At least two theoretical objections from named traditions are presented in their strongest form
- Each objection is explained as compelling from within its own tradition
- At least one boundary condition concession or fundamental-disagreement acknowledgment is documented
Common mistakes
- Engaging only with empirical objections while ignoring theoretical objections — the deepest challenges to political arguments are often theoretical
- Presenting objections from unnamed 'some people think' positions — objections must be grounded in named traditions
- Rejecting all objections without any concession — genuine theoretical disagreement almost always requires at least a boundary condition acknowledgment
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Check objections — confirm at least two are from named theoretical traditions in their strongest form
- Review explanations for why each is compelling within its tradition
- Verify at least one boundary condition concession or fundamental-disagreement acknowledgment is documented
Defend argument under adversarial challenge from political theorist or political scientist
1 week
Present the political argument to a political theorist, political philosopher, or political scientist for a structured Q&A. The reviewer must challenge both theoretical grounding and empirical evidence — 'you're grounding your position in Rawlsian liberalism but Rawls himself would disagree with your specific application here', 'your empirical claim about what policies produce — the evidence is contested', 'what would change your position?'. This Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE.
Proof required
Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's political theory or political science credentials, at least three specific challenges to theoretical grounding or empirical claims with responses, and any argument updates committed to.
What gets checked
- Reviewer is a political theorist, political philosopher, or political scientist
- At least three specific challenges — including at least one to theoretical grounding — are documented
- At least one argument update or boundary concession is committed to
Common mistakes
- Reviewer validates the argument without challenging the theoretical application
- Not being able to answer 'what would change your position?' — unfalsifiable political positions are not rigorous political argument
- No updates after a genuine challenge to theoretical grounding
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm reviewer is a political theorist, political philosopher, or political scientist
- Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three challenges including one on theoretical grounding are documented
- Check that at least one argument update or concession is committed to