feat: reformated arguments

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Nutrition/HealthPromotingFoods.elm

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ argumentHealthPromotingFoods =
     , argumentFormalization =
         [ { premises =
                 [ { premise = "If food is defined as material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and/or fat used in the body of an organism to sustain growth, repair, and vital processes and to furnish energy, then all foods are definitionally health-promoting."
-                  , notation = "(Q)"
+                  , notation = "(P→Q)"
                   }
                 , { premise = "Food is defined as material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and/or fat used in the body of an organism to sustain growth, repair, and vital processes and to furnish energy."
                   , notation = "(P)"

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Nutrition/HealthSeeker.elm

@@ -8,18 +8,18 @@ argumentHealthSeeker =
      { argumentTitle = "Ancestral Health Consistency Checker"
     , propositionTitle = "If someone (who favours consuming ancestral foods to the exclusion of novel foods because they value reducing disease risk) is not in favour of consuming a novel food (that reduces disease risk when replacing an ancestral food), then that person would be acting against their values."
     , propositionSummary = "Essentially, if our interlocutor identifies as \"F\", then all we need to do is demonstrate to them that \"N\" exists, and we're essentially home free. If they accept that \"N\" exists and they also identify as \"F\", then they should be in favour of substituting such a novel food for such an ancestral food. If they don't then they have a contradiction."
-    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~7xFx~1~7yNy~5~6x~6y(~3Cxy~5Ax)),(~7xFx),(~7yNy)%7C=(~6x~6y(~3Cxy~5Ax))"
+    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~7x(Px)~1~7y(Qy)~5~6x~6y(~3Rxy~5Sx)),(~7x(Px)),(~7y(Qy))|=(~6x~6y(~3Rxy~5Sx))"
     , definitionTable =
-        [ { definiendum = "F(x)"
+        [ { definiendum = "P(x)"
-          , definiens = "there exists (x) who favours consuming ancestral foods to the exclusion of (y) because they value reducing disease risk"
+          , definiens = "(x) favours consuming ancestral foods to the exclusion of (y) because they value reducing disease risk"
           }
-        , { definiendum = "N(y)"
+        , { definiendum = "Q(y)"
-          , definiens = "there exists a (y) that reduces disease risk when replacing an ancestral food"
+          , definiens = "(y) reduces disease risk when replacing an ancestral food"
           }
-        , { definiendum = "C(x,y)"
+        , { definiendum = "R(x,y)"
           , definiens = "(x) is in favour of consuming that (y)"
           }
-        , { definiendum = "A(x)"
+        , { definiendum = "S(x)"
           , definiens = "(x) would be acting against their values"
           }
         , { definiendum = "x"
@@ -32,17 +32,17 @@ argumentHealthSeeker =
     , argumentFormalization =
         [ { premises =
                 [ { premise = "If there exists someone who favours consuming ancestral foods to the exclusion of novel foods because they value reducing disease risk, and there exists a novel food that reduces disease risk when replacing an ancestral food, then if that person is not in favour of consuming that novel food, then that person would be acting against their values."
-                  , notation = "(∃xFx∧∃yNy→∀x∀y(¬Cxy→Ax))"
+                  , notation = "(∃x(Px)∧∃y(Qy)→∀x∀y(¬Rxy→Sx))"
                   }
                 , { premise = "There exists someone who favours consuming ancestral foods to the exclusion of novel foods because they value reducing disease risk."
-                  , notation = "(∃xFx)"
+                  , notation = "(∃x(Px))"
                   }
                 , { premise = "There exists a novel food that reduces disease risk when replacing an ancestral food."
-                  , notation = "(∃yNy)"
+                  , notation = "(∃y(Qy))"
                   }
                 ]
           , conclusion = "Therefore, if that person is not in favour of consuming that novel food, then that person would be acting against their values."
-          , conclusionNotation = "(∴∀x∀y(¬Cxy→Ax))"
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴∀x∀y(¬Rxy→Sx))"
           }
         ]
     }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Nutrition/HealthyFattyFish.elm

@@ -23,14 +23,14 @@ argumentHealthyFattyFish =
     , argumentFormalization =
         [ { premises =
                 [ { premise = "For all things, food (x) is overwhelmingly healthy if, and only if, food (x) consistently associates with a reduced risk of morbidity and mortality after adjustment or control over relevant confounders and covariates."
-                  , notation = ""
+                  , notation = "(∀x(Px↔Qx))"
                   }
                 , { premise = "Fatty fish consistently associates with a reduced risk of morbidity and mortality after adjustment or control over relevant confounders and covariates."
-                  , notation = ""
+                  , notation = "(Qf)"
                   }
                 ]
           , conclusion = "Therefore, fatty fish is overwhelmingly healthy."
-          , conclusionNotation = "(∴)"
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴Pf)"
           }
         ]
     }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Nutrition/Malondialdehyde.elm

@@ -8,15 +8,15 @@ argumentMalondialdehyde =
     { argumentTitle = "Atherogenic Omega-3 Reductio"
     , propositionTitle = "Omega-3s are atherogenic."
     , propositionSummary = "Summary"
-    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Ax~4Lx)),(Lm),(Am~5~6x(Fx))%7C=(Fo)"
+    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Px~4Qx)),(Qm),(Pm~5~6x(Rx))%7C=(Ro)"
     , definitionTable =
-        [ { definiendum = "A(x)"
+        [ { definiendum = "P(x)"
           , definiens = "(x) increases the risk of atherosclerosis"
           }
-        , { definiendum = "L(x)"
+        , { definiendum = "Q(x)"
           , definiens = "(x) facilitates the oxidative modification of LDL particles"
           }
-        , { definiendum = "F(x)"
+        , { definiendum = "R(x)"
           , definiens = "all (x) are atherogenic"
           }
         , { definiendum = "m"
@@ -29,17 +29,17 @@ argumentMalondialdehyde =
     , argumentFormalization =
         [ { premises =
                 [ { premise = "Something increases the risk of atherosclerosis if and only if something facilitates the oxidative modification of LDL particles."
-                  , notation = "(∀x(Ax↔Lx))"
+                  , notation = "(∀x(Px↔Qx))"
                   }
                 , { premise = "Malondialdehyde facilitates the oxidative modification of LDL particles."
-                  , notation = "(Lm)"
+                  , notation = "(Qm)"
                   }
                 , { premise = "If malondialdehyde increases the risk of atherosclerosis, then all malondialdehyde-producing fatty acids are atherogenic."
-                  , notation = "(Am→∀x(Fx))"
+                  , notation = "(Pm→∀x(Rx))"
                   }
                 ]
           , conclusion = "Therefore, omega-3s are atherogenic."
-          , conclusionNotation = "(∴Fo)"
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴Ro)"
           }
         ]
     }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Nutrition/PlantBasedCVDReversal.elm

@@ -31,12 +31,6 @@ argumentPlantBasedCVDReversal =
                 , { premise = "Current research on plant-based diets and atherosclerosis reversal do not satisfy the definitions for atherosclerosis reversal in the domain of cardiology."
                   , notation = "(¬Q)"
                   }
-                , { premise = ""
-                  , notation = ""
-                  }
-                , { premise = ""
-                  , notation = ""
-                  }
                 ]
           , conclusion = "Therefore, plant-based diets do not appear to clinically reverse atherosclerosis."
           , conclusionNotation = "(∴¬R)"

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Nutrition/PolyphenolReductio.elm

@@ -8,21 +8,21 @@ argumentPolyphenolReductio =
     { argumentTitle = "Anti-Polyphenol Reductio"
     , propositionTitle = "Anti-polyphenol, ancestral diet advocates are committed to favouring GMOs."
     , propositionSummary = "Summary"
-    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Hx~1Cxy~5Vxy)),(Hp),(Cpg),(Vpg~5Mpg),(Vpg),(Mpg~5Gp)|=(Gp)"
+    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Px~1Qxy~5Rxy)),(Pp),(Qpg),(Rpg~5Spg),(Spg~5Wp)|=(Wp)"
     , definitionTable =
-        [ { definiendum = "H(x)"
+        [ { definiendum = "P(x)"
           , definiens = "(x) is harmful"
           }
-        , { definiendum = "C(x,y)"
+        , { definiendum = "Q(x,y)"
           , definiens = "(x) is contained in (y)"
           }
-        , { definiendum = "V(x,y)"
+        , { definiendum = "R(x,y)"
           , definiens = "(x) renders (y) harmful"
           }
-        , { definiendum = "M(p,g)"
+        , { definiendum = "S(p,g)"
           , definiens = "genetic modification that removes (p) from grass renders (g) less harmful"
           }
-        , { definiendum = "G(p)"
+        , { definiendum = "W(p)"
           , definiens = "health-conscious, anti-polyphenol, ancestral diet advocates are committed to favouring GMOs"
           }
         , { definiendum = "x"
@@ -41,26 +41,23 @@ argumentPolyphenolReductio =
     , argumentFormalization =
         [ { premises =
                 [ { premise = "If plant defense chemicals (x) are harmful and plant defense chemicals (x) are contained in a food (y), then plant defense chemicals (x) render the food (y) harmful."
-                  , notation = "(∀x∀y(Hx∧Cxy→Vxy))"
+                  , notation = "(∀x∀y(Px∧Qxy→Rxy))"
                   }
                 , { premise = "Polyphenols from grass are harmful."
-                  , notation = "(Hp)"
+                  , notation = "(Pp)"
                   }
                 , { premise = "Polyphenols from grass are contained in grass-fed beef."
-                  , notation = "(Cpg)"
+                  , notation = "(Qpg)"
                   }
                 , { premise = "If polyphenols from grass render grass-fed beef harmful, then genetic modification that removes polyphenols from grass renders grass-fed beef less harmful."
-                  , notation = "(Vpg→Mpg)"
+                  , notation = "(Rpg→Spg)"
-                  }
-                , { premise = "Polyphenols from grass render grass-fed beef harmful."
-                  , notation = "(Vpg)"
                   }
                 , { premise = "If genetic modification that removes polyphenols from grass renders grass-fed beef less harmful, then health-conscious, anti-polyphenol, ancestral diet advocates are committed to favouring GMOs."
-                  , notation = "(Mpg→Gp)"
+                  , notation = "(Spg→Wp)"
                   }
                 ]
           , conclusion = "Therefore, health-conscious, anti-polyphenol, ancestral diet advocates are committed to favouring GMOs."
-          , conclusionNotation = "(∴Gp)"
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴Wp)"
           }
         ]
     }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Nutrition/UnhealthyCoconutOil.elm

@@ -1,19 +1,19 @@
-module Debate.Arguments.Nutrition.SaturatedFatLDL exposing (..)
+module Debate.Arguments.Nutrition.UnhealthyCoconutOil exposing (..)
 
 import Debate.Types exposing (..)
 
 
-argumentSaturatedFatLDL : Argument
+argumentUnhealthyCoconutOil : Argument
-argumentSaturatedFatLDL =
+argumentUnhealthyCoconutOil =
     { argumentTitle = "Argument For Atherogenic Coconut Oil"
     , propositionTitle = "There is not a reason to believe that coconut oil is any better for heart health than other saturated fat sources that increase LDL-C."
     , propositionSummary = "Summary"
-    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Sx~1Lx~5~3Rx)),(Sc),(Lc)%7C=(~3Rc)"
+    , proofLink = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Px~1Qx~5~3Rx)),(Pc),(Qc)|=(~3Rc)"
     , definitionTable =
-        [ { definiendum = "S"
+        [ { definiendum = "P"
           , definiens = "a given (x) increases LDL-C at a similar rate to other saturated fat sources"
           }
-        , { definiendum = "L"
+        , { definiendum = "Q"
           , definiens = "a given (x) has no other known qualities that counteract said increase in LDL-C"
           }
         , { definiendum = "R"
@@ -26,13 +26,13 @@ argumentSaturatedFatLDL =
     , argumentFormalization =
         [ { premises =
                 [ { premise = "If a given saturated fat source increases LDL-C at a similar rate to other saturated fat sources and and a given saturated fat source has no other known qualities that counteract said increase in LDL-C, then there is not a reason to believe that such a saturated fat source is any better for heart health than other saturated fat sources that increase LDL-C."
-                  , notation = "(∀x(Sx∧Lx→¬Rx))"
+                  , notation = "(∀x(Px∧Qx→¬Rx))"
                   }
                 , { premise = "Coconut oil increases LDL-C at a similar rate to other saturated fat sources."
-                  , notation = "(Sc)"
+                  , notation = "(Pc)"
                   }
                 , { premise = "Coconut oil has no other known qualities that counteract said increase in LDL-C."
-                  , notation = "(Lc)"
+                  , notation = "(Qc)"
                   }
                 ]
           , conclusion = "Therefore, there is not a reason to believe that coconut oil is any better for heart health than other saturated fat sources that increase LDL-C."

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/Agnosticism.elm

@@ -8,15 +8,15 @@ argumentAgnosticism =
     { argumentTitle = "Agnosticism Consistency Checker"
     , propositionTitle = "An interlocutor (who cannot unpack what evidence would lead them to change their doxastic attitude on a proposition) should temporarily withhold the belief that the proposition at hand is true"
     , propositionSummary = "Summary"
-    , proofLink  = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(~3Uxy~5~3Kxy)),(~6x~6y(~3Kxy~5Wxy)),(~3Uor)%7C=(Wor)"
+    , proofLink  = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(~3Pxy~5~3Qxy)),(~6x~6y(~3Qxy~5Rxy)),(~3Por)|=(Ror)"
     , definitionTable =
-        [ { definiendum = "U(x,y)"
+        [ { definiendum = "P(x,y)"
           , definiens = "(x) can unpack what evidence would lead them to change their doxastic attitude on (y)"
           }
-        , { definiendum = "K(x,y)"
+        , { definiendum = "Q(x,y)"
           , definiens = "(x) knows why they believe that (y) is true"
           }
-        , { definiendum = "W(x,y)"
+        , { definiendum = "R(x,y)"
           , definiens = "(x) should temporarily withhold the belief that (y) is true"
           }
         , { definiendum = "o"
@@ -29,17 +29,17 @@ argumentAgnosticism =
     , argumentFormalization =
         [ { premises =
                 [ { premise = "If one cannot unpack what evidence would lead them to change their doxastic attitude on a proposition, then one does does not know why they believe that a proposition is true."
-                  , notation = "(∀x∀y(¬Uxy→¬Kxy))"
+                  , notation = "(∀x∀y(¬Pxy→¬Qxy))"
                   }
                 , { premise = "If one does not know why they believe that a proposition is true, then one should temporarily withhold the belief that a proposition is true."
-                  , notation = "(∀x∀y(¬Kxy→Wxy))"
+                  , notation = "(∀x∀y(¬Qxy→Rxy))"
                   }
                 , { premise = "The interlocutor cannot unpack what evidence would lead them to change their doxastic attitude on the proposition at hand."
-                  , notation = "(¬Uor)"
+                  , notation = "(¬Por)"
                   }
                 ]
           , conclusion = "Therefore, the interlocutor should temporarily withhold the belief that the proposition at hand is true."
-          , conclusionNotation = "(∴Wor)"
+          , conclusionNotation = "(∴Ror)"
           }
         ]
     }

frontend/src/Debate/Arguments/Philosophy/AgriculturalPredation.elm

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ argumentAgriculturalPredation =
     { argumentTitle = "Argument for Animal Agirculture Counting as Predation"
     , propositionTitle = "Animal agriculture counts as predation."
     , propositionSummary = "Summary"
-    , proofLink  = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y~6z(Px~4Qxyz~1(Rxyz~2Sxyz)~1Txyz)),(Qahl),(Rahl~2Sahl),(Tahl)%7C=(Pa)"
+    , proofLink  = "https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y~6z(Px~4Qxyz~1(Rxyz~2Sxyz)~1Wxyz)),(Qahl),(Rahl~2Sahl),(Wahl)%7C=(Pa)"
     , definitionTable =
         [ { definiendum = "P(x)"
           , definiens = "(x) counts as predation"
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ argumentAgriculturalPredation =
         , { definiendum = "S(x,y,z)"
           , definiens = "(x) involves a (y) regularly subduing a (z)"
           }
-        , { definiendum = "T(x,y,z)"
+        , { definiendum = "W(x,y,z)"
           , definiens = "(x) involves a (y) regularly consuming, to the captor's benefit, a (z)"
           }
         , { definiendum = "a"
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ argumentAgriculturalPredation =
     , argumentFormalization =
         [ { premises =
                 [ { premise = "Something counts as predation if, and only if, something involves an animal regularly capturing, killing or subduing, and consuming, to the captor's benefit, another animal."
-                  , notation = "(∀x∀y∀z(Px↔Qxyz∧(Rxyz∨Sxyz)∧Txyz))"
+                  , notation = "(∀x∀y∀z(Px↔Qxyz∧(Rxyz∨Sxyz)∧Wxyz))"
                   }
                 , { premise = "Animal agriculture involves humans regularly capturing livestock."
                   , notation = "(Qahl)"
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ argumentAgriculturalPredation =
                   , notation = "(Rahl∨Sahl)"
                   }
                 , { premise = "Animal agriculture involves humans regularly consuming, to the captors' benefit, livestock."
-                  , notation = "(Tahl)"
+                  , notation = "(Wahl)"
                   }
                 ]
           , conclusion = "Therefore, animal agriculture counts as predation."

frontend/src/Pages/Arguments.elm

@@ -25,9 +25,9 @@ import Debate.Arguments.Nutrition.Omega3Omega6Ratio exposing (..)
 import Debate.Arguments.Nutrition.OptimalDiet exposing (..)
 import Debate.Arguments.Nutrition.PlantBasedCVDReversal exposing (..)
 import Debate.Arguments.Nutrition.PolyphenolReductio exposing (..)
-import Debate.Arguments.Nutrition.SaturatedFatLDL exposing (..)
 import Debate.Arguments.Nutrition.SodiumCVD exposing (..)
 import Debate.Arguments.Nutrition.TMAOCausality exposing (..)
+import Debate.Arguments.Nutrition.UnhealthyCoconutOil exposing (..)
 import Debate.Arguments.Nutrition.UnhealthyProcessedMeat exposing (..)
 import Debate.Arguments.Nutrition.UnhealthyRedMeat exposing (..)
 import Debate.Arguments.Nutrition.UnhealthySaturatedFat exposing (..)
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ debateList =
                     , argumentOptimalDiet
                     , argumentPlantBasedCVDReversal
                     , argumentPolyphenolReductio
-                    , argumentSaturatedFatLDL
+                    , argumentUnhealthyCoconutOil
                     , argumentSodiumCVD
                     , argumentTMAOCausality
                     , argumentUnhealthyRedMeat