Parallel Argument Map

Map each frame’s argument on one thesis with explicit premises, inference chains, and vulnerabilities. Keep frames independent—no synthesis, no verdicts—unless you explicitly type SYNTHESIZE.

Core Protocol

Jump to Prompt What this does

Premises + inference chain Steelman objections Evidence thresholds Live tensions

When to use it

Use this after you have frame profiles (or you already know the frames). It’s best when your thesis is narrow and you want to see exactly where arguments diverge.

After Multi-frame Comparison (frame profiles)
When debates keep looping without clarity
For teaching: “here’s the actual logic”

What it prevents

“They’re basically the same.” This protocol forces the exact premises, the exact inference jumps, and the exact authority weighting that blocks closure.

What this protocol does

Parallel Argument Map turns a debate into a transparent structure: each frame gets its own claim, premises, inference chain, and objections—followed by a “live tensions” section that names where closure breaks.

1) Map each frame cleanly

Separate sections per frame: one claim, atomic premises, and a numbered inference chain.

2) Surface vulnerabilities

Include internal debates and a steelman critique from other frames—without collapsing into verdicts.

3) Name the blocking step

End with “live tensions”: the exact premise conflicts, inference jumps, and authority disputes.

Practical win: if you can name the blocking step, you can stop arguing vaguely and start asking the right question: “Which premise (or authority) would have to move?”

Copy-paste prompt

Click “Copy Prompt” to grab the full instruction set. Then paste it into ChatGPT / Pickaxe and add your thesis + frames underneath.

Parallel Argument Map

Prompt: Parallel Argument Map

Purpose
Lay out each frame’s argument on a specific thesis in a transparent, step-by-step structure.
Expose premises, inferences, and vulnerabilities without collapsing frames into a single view.

When to use
After frame profiles, when you want to analyze a specific thesis or decision point.

Role and method
You are an AI interlocutor for theological inquiry.
Do not act as a pastor, counselor, or authority.
Present each frame’s argument independently and charitably.
Do not synthesize or recommend unless I explicitly type SYNTHESIZE.

Inputs
Specific thesis/question: [e.g., “Is Christ substantially present in the Eucharist?” or “Must baptism precede communion?”]
Frames to map (2–3): [e.g., Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox]
Representative sources per frame (optional): [list passages, councils, confessions, theologians]
Scope (optional): [e.g., ≤250 words per frame]

Constraints
- Separate sections per frame. No verdicts or applications.
- Tag premises with source type: [Scripture], [Tradition], [Reason], [Experience], [Speculation].
- Mark citations as [Primary]/[Secondary]/[Uncited]/[Unverified] when referenced.
- Include a “steelman” objection line for each frame.

Output format
For each frame (repeat):

1) Claim (one sentence)
- The frame’s position on the thesis, stated positively and fairly.

2) Premises (3–6 bullets)
- Each premise tagged with authority and citation status.
- Keep premises atomic; avoid smuggling conclusions.

3) Inference chain (numbered steps)
- Show how premises lead to the claim. Reference premise numbers.

4) Vulnerabilities/objections
- Internal: known debates or weak spots within this frame.
- External (steelman): the strongest opposing critique as that opponent would state it.

5) Evidence priorities and thresholds
- What evidence this frame counts as decisive (textual patterns, magisterial rulings, consensus patrum, etc.).
- What would change the frame’s mind on this thesis.

6) Notes on scope and definitions
- Any key terms that, if defined differently, would alter the argument.

Final section (after all frames): Live tensions (do not resolve)
- List the exact steps where frames diverge (premise disagreement, inference jump, authority weighting).
- Name which authority disputes block closure.

Guardrail macro (optional, paste at top)
Do not synthesize. If I type SYNTHESIZE, create a separate section that proposes a reconciliation and transparently marks where it departs from each frame’s commitments.

Quick follow-ups
- “Add quotations to each premise from representative sources with citations if possible.”
- “Highlight which premises are actually shared across frames.”
- “If I had 10 minutes to present this to a mixed audience, outline the talk.”

Tip: Keep premises “atomic.” If a premise includes a conclusion, split it into two smaller premises.

Quick start

Minimal Input

// Paste the prompt above, then add:

THESIS/QUESTION:
Must baptism precede communion?

FRAMES:
Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox

SCOPE:
≤250 words per frame

OPTIONAL SOURCES:
Reformed: Westminster Confession; key passages
Catholic: CCC; Trent; key passages
Orthodox: patristic consensus; key passages

House rule: No “middle view” unless you type SYNTHESIZE. Otherwise: keep frames separate.

Want the full library? Go back to Method Protocols and choose a different instrument.