adversarial-debate-truthseeking

# Adversarial Debate (Truth-Seeking Variant) A retuning of classic critic-defender-judge debate. The classic version asks "which side argued better?" and outputs a survival/resilience verdict — a persuasiveness metric. That is wrong for research: a claim can win a debate by being slippery (un-pin-down-able) while being scientifically empty. This variant changes the roles and the judge's job so the debate produces a falsifiability classification, not a winner. ## What changed from the original (multiagent-debate) | Element | Original (publication) | This variant (truth-seeking) | |---|---|---| | Defender's job | Make the claim look strong / survive | State the claim in its MOST falsifiable form — maximize what it forbids | | Critic's job | Find weaknesses to score against | Find one concrete observation/computation that would refute it | | Judge's verdict | Winner + resilience score | Bucket: BROKEN / CORROBORATED / UNFALSIFIABLE | | Success | Artifact survives | We learn whether the claim is even testable, and if so whether it holds | | Slippery claim | Wins (un-attackable) | Flagged UNFALSIFIABLE (worst outcome) | ## Roles ### Defender (steelman-to-falsifiable) The defender does NOT defend the claim as comfortable or vague. The defender's sole job is to restate the claim in the sharpest, most-forbidding form that is still faithful to what we actually meant. A claim of the form "the unification is elegant" is not a defendable form — it forbids nothing. "Under interventio...