It would be great to show arguments as processes (data, model(s), evaluation/claims), and other arguments as specific problems with the process (logical problem

It would be great to show arguments as processes (data, model(s), evaluation/claims), and other arguments as specific problems with the process (logical problem, bias, low quality data, bad statistics, etc..) Ultimately everyone should be able to agree on the data, the model and the evaluation separately. The differences should boil down to differences in personal assumptions (different Bayesian apriori distributions, eg. different morals, worldview, thresholds for things, etc.) This should lead to questions about stuff that is either subjective and thus people can agree to disagree, or to simpler objective problems. (For example that data collection methodology leads to higher uncertainty than claimed, hence the whole argument becomes inconclusive.)