Environment & Sustainability

Resolved: Environmental movements should prioritize corporate partnerships over political reform.

Core clash: Practical Impact vs. Advocacy Independence

Global (United States and European Union examples) 1990 – 2026 Sources last checked: 2026-10-31

Sources: 4 of 5 checked against the full text

1 secondary report

PF-style rendering of a BP motionOriginal: SSDI BP 2025, Grand Finalmotion list

Original BP wording: “THBT the environmental movement should focus on corporate partnerships rather than political reform.”

The “Resolved:” wording is this site’s rendering; it was not the tournament’s text.

01Event Background

The real-world development that makes this motion relevant, and its current status.

Key research questions

Can corporate partnerships produce measurable environmental progress?
Could funding relationships compromise advocacy independence?
How should short-term environmental results be compared with long-term systemic reform?

Event or policy: EDF–McDonald's partnership (1990) versus greenwashing scandals and EU green-claims rules
Date or period: 1990 – 2026
Policy status: Varies by jurisdiction

Environmental groups pursue two broad strategies: partnering with companies to change their operations, and campaigning for laws that bind all companies. A frequently cited partnership is the Environmental Defense Fund's work with McDonald's, begun after public pressure in the late 1980s: polystyrene clamshells were replaced with paper, and the partners report more than 300 million pounds of packaging eliminated and restaurant waste cut by 30% over a decade (EDF). Voluntary corporate action has limits: a 2023 investigation by the Guardian, Die Zeit and SourceMaterial concluded that more than 90% of the rainforest offset credits certified by Verra, widely bought by large companies, were likely “phantom credits”; Verra strongly disputed this. Political reform has since addressed some of these claims directly: the EU's Directive 2024/825, applying from 27 September 2026, bans generic claims like “eco” without proof, uncertified sustainability labels, and product “climate neutral” claims based on offsetting. The debate is whether movements should put their limited resources into cooperation with companies or into campaigns for binding rules.

Late 1980s – 1990s
EDF–McDonald's waste partnership
Clamshells replaced; 300+ million pounds of packaging eliminated (self-reported).
McDonald's saves billions cutting waste (EDF partnership case study)Environmental Defense Fund
2023-01-18
Investigation into Verra rainforest offsets
More than 90% likely “phantom credits”; Verra disputes.
Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest provider are worthless, analysis shows (Carbon Brief daily briefing)Carbon Brief, summarising The Guardian / Die Zeit / SourceMaterial (18 January 2023), 2023-01-19
2024-03-06
EU Directive 2024/825 published in the Official Journal
Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 (empowering consumers for the green transition)European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Official Journal of the European Union, L series), 2024-03-06
2026-03-27
Deadline for member states to adopt national rules
Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 (empowering consumers for the green transition)European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Official Journal of the European Union, L series), 2024-03-06
2026-09-27
EU ban on generic green claims and offset-based neutrality claims applies
Nine EU markets had no national rules in place on this date (Mayer Brown).
Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 (empowering consumers for the green transition)European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Official Journal of the European Union, L series), 2024-03-06The EU Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition, two years on (commentary on Directive (EU) 2024/825)Mayer Brown, 2026-10-27(secondary report)

02Motion Definitions

Resolved: Environmental movements should prioritize corporate partnerships over political reform.

Corporate partnerships: Collaborations in which environmental groups work with companies on commitments such as sourcing, packaging or emissions, sometimes with funding or endorsement.
Political reform: Campaigning for laws, regulations and public policies that bind all companies (e.g. emissions limits, disclosure rules).
Prioritize: Allocate most of a movement's resources and strategy to one approach, not abandon the other.

03Stakeholders

Environmental organisations
Vulnerability: moderate
Strategy choice shapes their influence and independence.
- Measurable impact
- Credibility
- Funding
Pragmatism Advocacy Independence
Companies
Vulnerability: lower
Partnerships offer reputational benefits; regulation imposes binding costs.
- Reputation
- Predictable rules
- Costs
Efficiency
The public and future generations
Vulnerability: higher
Bear the costs of slow or illusory progress.
- Real environmental outcomes
Environmental Sustainability
Governments and regulators
Vulnerability: lower
Respond to movement pressure; enforce rules.
- Effective policy
- Public support
Democratic Legitimacy Accountability

04Proposition Arguments

PropositionArgument 1
Partnerships deliver concrete changes now
Claim
Working directly with large companies can change supply chains and operations faster than legislation.
Warrant
One major company's decisions can affect vast volumes of material and emissions without waiting for political majorities.
Mechanism
NGO expertise helps companies find savings and redesign products; success stories spread across industries.
Impact
Measurable reductions in waste or emissions within years rather than decades.
Value
Pragmatism: environmental harm is urgent, so the fastest workable route deserves priority.
Possible weaknesses
Results are self-reported by the partners, with no counterfactual.
Evidence
EDF and McDonald's report that their partnership eliminated more than 300 million pounds of packaging, recycled 1 million tons of corrugated boxes and cut restaurant waste by 30% over a decade, saving about $6 million a year. Competing interpretation
Assumptions
Partnership commitments are implemented and lead to real reductions.
Counterevidence
The partnership's results are reported by the partners themselves, without an independent evaluation of what would have happened otherwise.
Pragmatism Environmental Sustainability
PropositionArgument 2
Political reform is slow and reversible
Claim
Legislation can stall for years and be repealed after elections, while business practices, once changed, often persist.
Warrant
Strategies should be judged by durable results under realistic political conditions.
Mechanism
Partnerships build internal company constituencies for sustainability that survive changes in government.
Impact
More reliable progress in polarised political systems.
Value
Pragmatism and long-term environmental sustainability.
Possible weaknesses
No evidence was gathered comparing the durability of partnerships and laws.
Evidence
EDF and McDonald's report that their partnership eliminated more than 300 million pounds of packaging, recycled 1 million tons of corrugated boxes and cut restaurant waste by 30% over a decade, saving about $6 million a year. Competing interpretation
Assumptions
Corporate practice changes outlast political changes.
Counterevidence
None linked yet.
Pragmatism

05Opposition Arguments

OppositionArgument 1
Voluntary corporate action is vulnerable to greenwashing
Claim
Without binding rules, corporate commitments can be cosmetic, and partnerships lend them credibility.
Warrant
Companies benefit from appearing green whether or not their actions are effective.
Mechanism
Companies buy offsets or make claims that are hard to verify; NGO partners' names reassure the public.
Impact
Illusory progress that delays real emission cuts.
Value
Independence and accountability: movements must be free to expose failures.
Possible weaknesses
The offset investigation's methods were disputed by the certifier.
Evidence
A 2023 investigation concluded that more than 90% of Verra's rainforest offset credits, bought by companies such as Disney, Shell and Gucci, were likely “phantom credits”; Verra strongly disputed this. Competing interpretation
Assumptions
Partnerships reduce NGOs' willingness to criticise partners.
Counterevidence
None linked yet.
Advocacy Independence Accountability
OppositionArgument 2
Only laws bind the laggards
Claim
Political reform sets rules for every company, including those that would never partner, so it achieves scale partnerships cannot.
Warrant
Collective problems need collective rules.
Mechanism
Regulation (for example EU rules against misleading green claims) applies across a market and is enforceable.
Impact
Economy-wide change and a level playing field.
Value
Democratic legitimacy and environmental sustainability.
Possible weaknesses
Laws depend on political majorities, and nine EU markets had not transposed the directive on time.
Evidence
EU Directive 2024/825, applying from 27 September 2026, adds to the EU blacklist of unfair commercial practices: generic environmental claims without recognised excellent environmental performance, sustainability labels not based on a certification scheme or set by public authorities, and claims that a product is climate-neutral or has reduced impact on the basis of offsetting. Claims about future performance (such as net-zero targets) need a detailed, independently verified implementation plan. Verified fact
Assumptions
Political reform is achievable in the relevant jurisdictions.
Counterevidence
None linked yet.
Democratic Legitimacy Environmental Sustainability

06Interactive Argument Map

Switch between cases, expand mechanisms to see evidence and assumptions, and select a node to follow what it supports or challenges.

React Flow

Inspect a node

Select any box to read its explanation, see its sources and follow the arguments it supports or attacks. Drag to pan; pinch, Ctrl + scroll or the buttons in the corner zoom.

Node types

Claim— What a side asserts.
Mechanism— How the claimed effect happens.
Evidence— Material that supports a step; linked to sources.
Assumption— What must be true for the reasoning to work.
Counterevidence— Material that challenges a step. Dashed outline.
Rebuttal— A response to an attack.
Impact— The consequence that follows.
Value— Why the consequence matters.
Weighing— How competing impacts are compared.

Relationships

supports— Makes the target more likely or more important.
challenges— Weakens or attacks the target.
depends on— Only works if the target is true.
qualifies— Limits the scope or strength of the target.
leads to— Causes or produces the target.
justifies— Explains why the target matters morally.
conflicts with— The two cannot both be fully honoured.

Lines labelled “(across sides)” connect a Proposition element to an Opposition element: these are the points where the two cases directly clash.

Open the map full width →

07Assumptions

What must be true for each argument to work. Empirical assumptions can be tested; normative ones must be argued for.

empirical assumptions

Proposition
Partnership commitments are implemented and lead to real reductions.
Commitments without follow-through are greenwashing.
Proposition
Corporate practice changes outlast political changes.
Durability is the core of this argument.
Opposition
Partnerships reduce NGOs' willingness to criticise partners.
Independence is the Opposition's central value.
Opposition
Political reform is achievable in the relevant jurisdictions.
If reform is blocked, prioritising it yields little.

normative assumptions

None identified.

08Evidence

Raised by the Proposition

PropositionCompeting interpretationQuantitative
EDF and McDonald's report that their partnership eliminated more than 300 million pounds of packaging, recycled 1 million tons of corrugated boxes and cut restaurant waste by 30% over a decade, saving about $6 million a year.
Supports: Partnerships deliver concrete changes now; Political reform is slow and reversible
Limitations: Self-reported by the partners; no counterfactual.
McDonald's saves billions cutting waste (EDF partnership case study)Environmental Defense Fund

Raised by the Opposition

OppositionCompeting interpretationQuantitative
A 2023 investigation concluded that more than 90% of Verra's rainforest offset credits, bought by companies such as Disney, Shell and Gucci, were likely “phantom credits”; Verra strongly disputed this.
Supports: Voluntary corporate action is vulnerable to greenwashing
Limitations: Methods contested by the certifier.
Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest provider are worthless, analysis shows (Carbon Brief daily briefing)Carbon Brief, summarising The Guardian / Die Zeit / SourceMaterial (18 January 2023), 2023-01-19
OppositionVerified fact
EU Directive 2024/825, applying from 27 September 2026, adds to the EU blacklist of unfair commercial practices: generic environmental claims without recognised excellent environmental performance, sustainability labels not based on a certification scheme or set by public authorities, and claims that a product is climate-neutral or has reduced impact on the basis of offsetting. Claims about future performance (such as net-zero targets) need a detailed, independently verified implementation plan.
Supports: Only laws bind the laggards
Limitations: Describes what the law requires, not whether it changes corporate behaviour; national implementation was incomplete on the application date. The directive does not show that campaigning for law outperforms partnerships, only that binding rules now cover some claims.
Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 (empowering consumers for the green transition)European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Official Journal of the European Union, L series), 2024-03-06
The EU Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition, two years on (commentary on Directive (EU) 2024/825)Mayer Brown, 2026-10-27(secondary report)

09Counterevidence

Evidence that challenges an argument's empirical claims, and what it does and does not show.

Raised by the Opposition

OppositionCompeting interpretation
The partnership's results are reported by the partners themselves, without an independent evaluation of what would have happened otherwise.
Challenges: Partnerships deliver concrete changes now
Limitations: Methodological caution.
McDonald's saves billions cutting waste (EDF partnership case study)Environmental Defense Fund

10Rebuttals and Main Clashes

Oppositionresponds toPartnerships deliver concrete changes now
- Targets: Partnership commitments are implemented and lead to real reductions.
Self-reported partnership results cannot be independently checked and may serve the company's reputation more than the environment.
Answer back: Independent auditing can be built into partnerships.
Propositionresponds toOnly laws bind the laggards
- Targets: Political reform is achievable in the relevant jurisdictions.
Laws require political majorities that may never come; partnerships act now.
Answer back: Movements created those majorities in the past; abandoning reform guarantees they never come.

Main argument clashes

Feasibility
Which strategy produces durable change under real political conditions?
Proposition
Partnerships, because politics is slow and reversible.
Opposition
Laws, because only they bind everyone.
What would settle it
Comparative evidence on outcomes of partnership and regulatory campaigns.
Values
Should movements trade independence for influence?
Proposition
Influence matters more than purity.
Opposition
Independence is the source of movements' credibility and leverage.
What would settle it
A normative account of the role of civil society.
Facts
How common is greenwashing in corporate commitments?
Proposition
Exceptions exist; many commitments are real.
Opposition
Investigations show widespread unreliable claims.
What would settle it
Independent audits of corporate environmental claims.

11Values & Clashes

From each side's position down to the values that make its impacts matter, then the clash between those values.

Proposition

Pragmatism Environmental Sustainability

Opposition

Advocacy Independence Accountability Democratic Legitimacy

1
Layer 1 — Position
What specific policy or action does each side support?
Proposition
Environmental movements should make corporate partnerships their main strategy.
Opposition
Movements should prioritise political reform and keep independence from companies.
2
Layer 2 — Mechanism
How does each side believe its position will create change?
Proposition
Direct work with companies changes practice quickly and durably.
Opposition
Binding laws reach all companies and prevent greenwashing; independence preserves leverage.

Layer 3 — Impact

Who experiences the consequences? Immediate or long-term? Reversible? Evenly distributed?

Impact	Side	Timeframe	Reversibility	Distribution
Faster, concrete reductions at partner companies.	proposition	immediate	reversible	Limited to willing companies.
Economy-wide binding standards.	opposition	long-term	partially reversible	Applies to all firms.

4
Layer 4 — Underlying value
What makes the outcome morally or politically important?
Proposition
Pragmatism and environmental sustainability.
Opposition
Independence, accountability and democratic legitimacy.
5
Layer 5 — Value weighing
How should the competing values be compared, and on what grounds?
The Proposition offers speed and certainty at small scale; the Opposition offers scale and enforceability with political uncertainty. Robustness matters: an argument that depends on companies delivering their commitments is fragile if follow-through is weak.

Deep value clash analysis

PragmatismversusAdvocacy Independencemixed disagreement
Getting results through cooperation versus keeping the freedom to oppose and expose.
Proposition
Environmental harm is urgent; cooperation that works now beats principled opposition that waits.
Opposition
Movements' power comes from independent pressure; dependence on partners blunts it and lends credibility to greenwashing.
Are the values genuinely in conflict?
Partly: some groups partner while others campaign, so a movement can do both.
What creates the conflict
Funding relationships, reputational ties and limited organisational resources.
Could both be partly protected?
Division of labour between organisations; refusing partner funding; independent auditing.
Policies that reduce the trade-off
- Partnerships without financial ties
- Combining partnerships with advocacy for regulation
Assumptions that decide the priority
- Whether partnerships compromise independence
- Whether reform is politically achievable
Evidence that could change the judgment
- Audited outcomes of partnerships
- Comparative history of environmental laws and campaigns
Empirical questions (evidence could settle)
- Do partnerships deliver measurable results?
Normative questions (argument must settle)
- What is the proper role of civil society relative to business?
What would remain even if both sides accepted the same facts
Whether movements should be insiders or outsiders to economic power.
How different ethical frameworks might judge it
Consequentialist
Choose the strategy with the greatest expected environmental benefit, accounting for greenwashing risk.
Virtue ethics
Integrity and courage favour independence; prudence favours pragmatic cooperation.
No framework is presented as correct; each makes different assumptions about what matters morally.

Explore a value

Choose a value to trace the arguments, stakeholders, evidence and assumptions connected to it.

Pragmatismis mainly invoked byPropositionGlossary entry →

Arguments that rely on it

PropositionPartnerships deliver concrete changes now
PropositionPolitical reform is slow and reversible

Stakeholder interests

Environmental organisations: Strategy choice shapes their influence and independence.

Competing values

(mixed)
Getting results through cooperation versus keeping the freedom to oppose and expose.

Evidence on the consequences

EDF and McDonald's report that their partnership eliminated more than 300 million pounds of packaging, recycled 1 million tons of corrugated boxes and cut restaurant waste by 30% over a decade, saving about $6 million a year.
The partnership's results are reported by the partners themselves, without an independent evaluation of what would have happened otherwise.

Assumptions that decide the priority

Whether partnerships compromise independence
Whether reform is politically achievable

How it is weighed

LikelihoodPropositionPartnerships can act without political majorities.

12Weighing Mechanisms

Not every debate can be reduced to a numerical score. Here, weighing means comparing the likelihood, severity, distribution and ethical significance of competing outcomes. The goal is to make the reasoning behind different judgments explicit, not to calculate an objectively correct moral answer.

Scale
Opposition
Laws reach every company.
Partnerships reach only willing firms.
Likelihood
Proposition
Partnerships can act without political majorities.
Reform may be blocked for years.

Questions to test any weighing claim in this debate

Scale: How many people are affected?
Severity: How serious is the harm or benefit for each person?
Likelihood: How probable is the claimed outcome, given the evidence?
Distribution: Who bears the costs and who receives the benefits?
Reversibility: Can the outcome be undone if the policy is wrong?
Vulnerability: Are the affected stakeholders less able to protect themselves?
Rights & principled constraints: Does the policy cross a line that outcomes alone cannot justify?
Less restrictive alternatives: Could the same goal be reached with a smaller intrusion?
Long-term implications: What precedents or path dependencies does the choice create?
Fairness: Is the burden placed on people who can reasonably be asked to bear it?
Uncertain assumptions: Which empirical or normative assumption, if it turned out false, would reverse the comparison?

To see how numerical weights can change a conclusion, and why such models are only illustrative, try the multi-objective optimisation module or the illustrative weighing framework.

13Mathematical Connections

Statistical and causal reasoning errors that matter in this debate, each linked to the Math × Debate module that explains it.

Expected value of strategies
Compare probability of success times impact for each strategy.
Module 11: Expected Value →
Fragile assumptions
Test how the conclusion changes if corporate follow-through is lower than claimed.
Module 15: Sensitivity Analysis →
Multiple objectives
Speed, scale and independence trade off; look for dominated strategies.
Module 14: Multi-objective Optimization →

Questions for your own judgment

Can a movement do both, through different organisations?
Should environmental groups accept funding from corporate partners?

14Research Sources

Known research gaps

Member-state transposition of Directive 2024/825 is cited from a law firm's commentary, not from national legislation.
The offset investigation was checked through Carbon Brief's summary of the Guardian report.
No comparative evidence on partnership versus reform outcomes was gathered.

OtherVerification: Full text checkededf-mcdonalds-partnership
McDonald's saves billions cutting waste (EDF partnership case study)
Environmental Defense Fund · date not recorded
Key finding
After public pressure in the late 1980s, EDF worked with McDonald's on its U.S. packaging and waste; polystyrene clamshells were replaced with paper, and the team found nearly 80% of waste came from behind the counter. Over the following decade the partners report more than 300 million pounds of packaging eliminated, 1 million tons of corrugated boxes recycled, restaurant waste cut by 30% and estimated savings of $6 million a year.
Methodology
Partnership case study published by the NGO involved.
Methodological limitations
Self-reported by a partner; no independent evaluation or counterfactual (what McDonald's would have done anyway).
Last checked: 2026-10-31
News reportingVerification: Full text checkedcarbonbrief-2023-verra-offsets
Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest provider are worthless, analysis shows (Carbon Brief daily briefing)
Carbon Brief, summarising The Guardian / Die Zeit / SourceMaterial (18 January 2023) · 2023-01-19
Key finding
A nine-month investigation, based on new analysis of scientific studies of Verra's rainforest schemes, concluded that more than 90% of its rainforest offset credits, among the most commonly used by companies such as Disney, Shell and Gucci, are likely “phantom credits” that do not represent genuine carbon reductions. Verra strongly disputed the conclusions. The voluntary offset market was valued at about $2 billion.
Methodology
Journalistic investigation drawing on academic studies of deforestation baselines, interviews and field reporting.
Methodological limitations
Secondary summary of a media investigation; methods were disputed by the certifier.
Last checked: 2026-10-31
LegislationVerification: Full text checkedeu-directive-2024-825
Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 (empowering consumers for the green transition)
European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Official Journal of the European Union, L series) · 2024-03-06
Key finding
Amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) and the Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU). Annex I additions ban in all circumstances: displaying a sustainability label not based on a certification scheme or established by public authorities (point 2a); generic environmental claims where the trader cannot demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance (4a); environmental claims about a whole product or business that concern only one aspect (4b); and claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive climate impact (4c). Claims about future environmental performance require clear, verifiable commitments in a detailed implementation plan, regularly verified by an independent expert (new Article 6(2)(d)). Member States had to adopt national measures by 27 March 2026 and apply them from 27 September 2026 (Article 4).
Methodology
Primary legal text (EUR-Lex, English version).
Methodological limitations
States legal requirements only; says nothing about compliance or effects on corporate behaviour. Recital 12: companies may still advertise investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, if the information is not misleading.
Last checked: 2026-10-31
OtherVerification: Secondary report checkedeu-2024-825-green-claims
The EU Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition, two years on (commentary on Directive (EU) 2024/825)
Mayer Brown · 2026-10-27
Key finding
Commentary on implementation: nine EU markets lacked national transposing rules on the 27 September 2026 application date. (What the directive itself requires is cited from the official text, eu-directive-2024-825.)
Methodology
Law firm analysis of the directive and member-state transposition.
Methodological limitations
Secondary legal commentary by a law firm; used only for the state of national transposition, not for the content of the law.
Last checked: 2026-10-31
Tournament recordVerification: Full text checkedtab-ssdi-bp-2025
SSDI BP 2025: motions
SSDI BP 2025 (Tabbycat) · date not recorded
Key finding
Lists the Round 1 (subsidies for global virtual schools), Round 5 (redevelopment must guarantee return of displaced residents) and Grand Final (environmental movement and corporate partnerships) motions.
Methodology
Official motion list published on the tournament's Tabbycat (calicotab) site.
Methodological limitations
Confirms the original BP wording and round only. The PF-style wording used on this site is an editorial rendering, not the tournament's text.
Last checked: 2026-10-31

Resolved: Environmental movements should prioritize corporate partnerships over political reform.

01Event Background

02Motion Definitions

03Stakeholders

Environmental organisations

Companies

The public and future generations

Governments and regulators

04Proposition Arguments

Partnerships deliver concrete changes now

Political reform is slow and reversible

05Opposition Arguments

Voluntary corporate action is vulnerable to greenwashing

Only laws bind the laggards

06Interactive Argument Map

07Assumptions

empirical assumptions

normative assumptions

08Evidence

Raised by the Proposition

Raised by the Opposition

09Counterevidence

Raised by the Opposition

10Rebuttals and Main Clashes

Main argument clashes

11Values & Clashes

Layer 1 — Position

Layer 2 — Mechanism

Layer 3 — Impact

Layer 4 — Underlying value

Layer 5 — Value weighing

Deep value clash analysis

Explore a value

Arguments that rely on it

Stakeholder interests

Competing values

Evidence on the consequences

Assumptions that decide the priority

How it is weighed

12Weighing Mechanisms

13Mathematical Connections

Questions for your own judgment

14Research Sources

Resolved: Environmental movements should prioritize corporate partnerships over political reform.

01Event Background

02Motion Definitions

03Stakeholders

Environmental organisations

Companies

The public and future generations

Governments and regulators

04Proposition Arguments

Partnerships deliver concrete changes now

Political reform is slow and reversible

05Opposition Arguments

Voluntary corporate action is vulnerable to greenwashing

Only laws bind the laggards

06Interactive Argument Map

07Assumptions

empirical assumptions

normative assumptions

08Evidence

Raised by the Proposition

Raised by the Opposition

09Counterevidence

Raised by the Opposition

10Rebuttals and Main Clashes

Main argument clashes

11Values & Clashes

Layer 1 — Position

Layer 2 — Mechanism

Layer 3 — Impact

Layer 4 — Underlying value

Layer 5 — Value weighing

Deep value clash analysis

Explore a value

Arguments that rely on it

Stakeholder interests

Competing values

Evidence on the consequences