{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"tool_opinionate","slug":"opinionate","name":"Opinionate","type":"product","url":"https://opinionate.io","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/opinionate","categories":["research-search"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"freemium","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"tool_opinionate__cap_0","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.structured.argument.generation.with.claim.evidence.warrant","name":"structured-argument-generation-with-claim-evidence-warrant","description":"Generates multi-part arguments using a claim-evidence-warrant structure, where the AI decomposes a position into a central claim, supporting evidence, and logical reasoning that connects them. The system likely uses prompt engineering or fine-tuned models to enforce this argumentative framework, ensuring outputs follow formal debate conventions rather than free-form text generation.","intents":["I need to quickly generate a well-structured argument for a debate position I'm preparing","I want to formalize a fuzzy business decision into a persuasive argument with clear premises and conclusions","I need to create multiple argumentative angles on the same topic to explore different reasoning paths"],"best_for":["debate team coaches preparing students for structured debate formats","policy analysts needing rapid formalization of argumentative positions","business decision-makers exploring multiple reasoning frameworks before committing to a choice"],"limitations":["Generated claims may contain plausible-sounding but unverified premises without fact-checking","Warrant (logical connection) can mask logical fallacies that require domain expertise to identify","Output structure enforces formal argument format but does not guarantee persuasiveness or originality"],"requires":["Internet connection to access Opinionate service","Account creation (freemium tier available)","Clear topic or proposition statement as input"],"input_types":["text (topic/proposition statement)","text (debate context or position)"],"output_types":["structured text (claim-evidence-warrant format)","exportable document (for presentations or papers)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_opinionate__cap_1","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.counterargument.generation.with.position.reversal","name":"counterargument-generation-with-position-reversal","description":"Automatically generates opposing arguments by inverting the user's stated position and reasoning through the alternative perspective. The system likely uses prompt-based position reversal or adversarial prompting patterns to explore weaknesses in the original argument and construct logically coherent rebuttals without requiring the user to manually articulate the opposing view.","intents":["I want to understand the strongest counterarguments to my position before presenting it","I need to prepare responses to likely objections in a debate or negotiation","I want to identify logical vulnerabilities in my reasoning by seeing how an opponent would attack it"],"best_for":["debate competitors preparing for rebuttals and cross-examination","negotiators anticipating objections and preparing defensive arguments","researchers stress-testing their own positions for logical consistency"],"limitations":["Counterarguments may be logically sound but factually incorrect without independent verification","System does not rank counterarguments by strength or likelihood of being raised by actual opponents","Generated rebuttals may not reflect real-world domain expertise or common objections in specialized fields"],"requires":["Internet connection to Opinionate service","Freemium or paid account","Original argument or position statement as input"],"input_types":["text (user's original argument or position)"],"output_types":["structured text (counterargument in claim-evidence-warrant format)","exportable document"],"categories":["text-generation-language","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_opinionate__cap_2","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.multi.angle.argument.exploration.with.premise.variation","name":"multi-angle-argument-exploration-with-premise-variation","description":"Generates multiple argumentative approaches to the same position by varying underlying premises, evidence sources, and reasoning paths. The system likely uses prompt variation or template-based generation to explore different logical foundations for reaching the same conclusion, allowing users to discover which argumentative angle resonates best with different audiences or contexts.","intents":["I want to see multiple ways to argue for the same position to find the most persuasive angle","I need to tailor arguments for different audiences (technical vs. non-technical, conservative vs. progressive)","I want to understand which premises are essential to my position and which are interchangeable"],"best_for":["marketing and communications teams crafting messages for diverse audiences","policy advocates exploring multiple frames for the same policy position","educators helping students understand how the same conclusion can rest on different logical foundations"],"limitations":["Generating multiple angles increases risk of including contradictory or mutually-exclusive premises","No built-in mechanism to identify which angles are most persuasive for specific audience segments","Variations may be superficial (rewording) rather than genuinely different logical approaches"],"requires":["Internet connection to Opinionate service","Freemium or paid account","Clear position or conclusion to explore"],"input_types":["text (position or conclusion to explore)"],"output_types":["multiple structured arguments (each with different premises/evidence)","exportable document with all variations"],"categories":["text-generation-language","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_opinionate__cap_3","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.decision.framework.argument.mapping","name":"decision-framework-argument-mapping","description":"Structures arguments around decision-making frameworks by mapping pros, cons, and trade-offs for a given choice or policy. The system likely uses decision-tree or matrix-based prompting to organize arguments around specific decision criteria, helping users visualize how different arguments support or undermine different aspects of a decision.","intents":["I need to map out all arguments for and against a business decision in a structured way","I want to understand how different arguments relate to specific decision criteria (cost, risk, timeline, etc.)","I need to create a decision memo that presents balanced arguments for stakeholder review"],"best_for":["business decision-makers evaluating strategic choices with multiple stakeholders","policy analysts preparing decision briefs for government or organizational leadership","project managers documenting trade-offs for go/no-go decisions"],"limitations":["Framework-based organization does not weight arguments by importance or likelihood","System does not integrate actual data or metrics to validate trade-off claims","Generated arguments may oversimplify complex trade-offs or miss domain-specific considerations"],"requires":["Internet connection to Opinionate service","Freemium or paid account","Decision question and relevant criteria as input"],"input_types":["text (decision question)","text (decision criteria or evaluation dimensions)"],"output_types":["structured text (pros/cons organized by criteria)","exportable decision memo or matrix"],"categories":["text-generation-language","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_opinionate__cap_4","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.argument.export.and.presentation.formatting","name":"argument-export-and-presentation-formatting","description":"Converts generated arguments into exportable formats (PDF, Word, presentation slides) with professional formatting suitable for presentations, papers, or formal documents. The system likely uses template-based rendering or document generation APIs to transform structured argument data into publication-ready output without requiring manual formatting by the user.","intents":["I want to export my generated arguments into a presentation for a debate competition","I need to format arguments into a policy brief or white paper for distribution","I want to create a formatted document I can share with colleagues for feedback"],"best_for":["students and debate teams preparing competition materials","researchers and policy analysts creating formal documents","business teams preparing decision memos or strategic briefs"],"limitations":["Export formatting is template-based and may not support custom branding or complex layouts","No built-in citation management or bibliography generation for academic use","Exported documents do not include source verification or fact-checking annotations"],"requires":["Internet connection to Opinionate service","Generated arguments in the system","Freemium or paid account (export may be premium-only)"],"input_types":["structured arguments (generated within Opinionate)"],"output_types":["PDF document","Word document (.docx)","presentation slides","plain text"],"categories":["automation-workflow","text-generation-language"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_opinionate__cap_5","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.debate.topic.research.and.context.injection","name":"debate-topic-research-and-context-injection","description":"Allows users to provide debate topic context, background information, or specific constraints that the system incorporates into argument generation. The system likely uses context-aware prompting or retrieval-augmented generation patterns to ensure generated arguments are grounded in the specific debate context rather than generic arguments, improving relevance and specificity.","intents":["I want to generate arguments specific to my debate topic and the particular resolution being debated","I need arguments that account for specific constraints or context (e.g., 'this is a high school debate' or 'the audience is economists')","I want to ensure generated arguments are relevant to the specific debate format and rules"],"best_for":["debate coaches preparing topic-specific arguments for their teams","policy analysts generating arguments within specific regulatory or organizational contexts","researchers exploring arguments within bounded problem domains"],"limitations":["System does not verify that provided context is accurate or complete","Context injection may amplify biases if the provided background information is skewed","No mechanism to flag when generated arguments contradict or ignore provided context"],"requires":["Internet connection to Opinionate service","Freemium or paid account","Debate topic, resolution, or context statement as input"],"input_types":["text (debate topic or resolution)","text (background context or constraints)","text (audience or format specifications)"],"output_types":["structured arguments (tailored to provided context)","exportable document"],"categories":["text-generation-language","memory-knowledge"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_opinionate__cap_6","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.argument.quality.scoring.and.fallacy.detection","name":"argument-quality-scoring-and-fallacy-detection","description":"Analyzes generated arguments for logical fallacies, weak premises, or reasoning gaps and provides quality feedback. The system likely uses pattern matching or rule-based analysis to identify common logical fallacies (ad hominem, straw man, begging the question, etc.) and flag potentially weak claims, though it may not catch all domain-specific reasoning errors without expert review.","intents":["I want to know if my generated arguments contain logical fallacies before using them in a debate","I need feedback on the strength and validity of AI-generated premises","I want to identify which parts of an argument are most vulnerable to attack"],"best_for":["debate students learning to identify logical fallacies in their own arguments","policy analysts quality-checking AI-generated arguments before formal use","educators using the tool to teach argument evaluation and critical thinking"],"limitations":["Fallacy detection is pattern-based and may miss subtle or domain-specific reasoning errors","System cannot verify factual accuracy of premises, only logical structure","False positives possible: valid arguments may be flagged as fallacious if they use uncommon reasoning patterns","Does not provide severity ranking or guidance on how to fix identified issues"],"requires":["Internet connection to Opinionate service","Generated arguments to analyze","Freemium or paid account (quality scoring may be premium-only)"],"input_types":["structured arguments (generated or user-provided)"],"output_types":["quality score or rating","list of identified fallacies with locations","feedback on argument strength"],"categories":["safety-moderation","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_opinionate__cap_7","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.collaborative.argument.refinement.with.feedback.loops","name":"collaborative-argument-refinement-with-feedback-loops","description":"Enables users to iteratively refine generated arguments by providing feedback, requesting specific changes, or asking for alternative phrasings. The system likely uses conversational prompting or instruction-following patterns to accept user feedback and regenerate arguments with requested modifications, creating a feedback loop for argument improvement.","intents":["I want to refine a generated argument by asking for stronger evidence or clearer wording","I need to adjust an argument to be more persuasive for a specific audience","I want to iterate on an argument until it meets my standards for a formal presentation"],"best_for":["debate teams collaboratively refining arguments through multiple iterations","policy analysts fine-tuning arguments for stakeholder presentations","writers using the tool as a brainstorming and refinement partner"],"limitations":["Iterative refinement may drift from original intent if feedback is vague or contradictory","System does not maintain version history or allow easy comparison of iterations","No mechanism to track which user feedback led to which changes in the argument"],"requires":["Internet connection to Opinionate service","Generated arguments to refine","Freemium or paid account"],"input_types":["structured arguments (generated or user-provided)","text (user feedback or refinement requests)"],"output_types":["refined structured arguments","exportable document with refined arguments"],"categories":["text-generation-language","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":39,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"low","permissions":["Internet connection to access Opinionate service","Account creation (freemium tier available)","Clear topic or proposition statement as input","Internet connection to Opinionate service","Freemium or paid account","Original argument or position statement as input","Clear position or conclusion to explore","Decision question and relevant criteria as input","Generated arguments in the system","Freemium or paid account (export may be premium-only)"],"failure_modes":["Generated claims may contain plausible-sounding but unverified premises without fact-checking","Warrant (logical connection) can mask logical fallacies that require domain expertise to identify","Output structure enforces formal argument format but does not guarantee persuasiveness or originality","Counterarguments may be logically sound but factually incorrect without independent verification","System does not rank counterarguments by strength or likelihood of being raised by actual opponents","Generated rebuttals may not reflect real-world domain expertise or common objections in specialized fields","Generating multiple angles increases risk of including contradictory or mutually-exclusive premises","No built-in mechanism to identify which angles are most persuasive for specific audience segments","Variations may be superficial (rewording) rather than genuinely different logical approaches","Framework-based organization does not weight arguments by importance or likelihood","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.31666666666666665,"quality":0.67,"ecosystem":0.15000000000000002,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.35,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:31.859Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-05T13:23:42.560Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=opinionate","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=opinionate"}},"signature":"lFCt0zmznyv8PeC+w4e/DzL42AuelwtgIaAEvg5W7COo36LbJweBpaixzNdd5YKMzaWKHIpeAQZQ7XG5KdVLDA==","signedAt":"2026-06-20T06:03:11.233Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/opinionate","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/opinionate","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=opinionate","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}