https://github.com/figadore/debate-tree
https://github.com/figadore/debate-tree
Last synced: 6 months ago
JSON representation
- Host: GitHub
- URL: https://github.com/figadore/debate-tree
- Owner: figadore
- Created: 2017-12-24T20:13:15.000Z (over 8 years ago)
- Default Branch: master
- Last Pushed: 2018-04-09T01:21:04.000Z (over 8 years ago)
- Last Synced: 2025-10-10T11:14:49.930Z (10 months ago)
- Size: 3.91 KB
- Stars: 0
- Watchers: 1
- Forks: 0
- Open Issues: 0
-
Metadata Files:
- Readme: README.md
Awesome Lists containing this project
README
# Debate Tree (working name)
## The problem being solved
It is difficult to find answers to certain types of questions. Take the existence of God as an example. Most people that write about the subject already have an opinion, and present arguments in favor of their view, and don't provide a way to respond with counterpoints. Even in formats designed to solve this problem, like verbal debates, many points are left unaddressed in the limited time provided.
## Proposed solution
Provide a place (website) where rigorous and comprehensive debate can take place
### Mechanisms
#### Debate mechanics
Each debate starts with a root "claim", which users can add a variety of support arguments and points in favor of this claim. Each point is to be independently addressable, and can have further debate. The nodes should branch (explode) out from the root, and each branch can extend out and branch until the topics and subtopics are addressed exhaustively. Submitted arguments that address multiple points must be split up
Points should be categorized and tagged with various metadata. Strategy (e.g. appeal to reason, supporting scientific evidence, etc), statistics (user interactions, branches, etc), statuses/badges (verified, invalid, most-accepted, etc).
The most valid arguments and evidence are displayed prominently, while those that add little value are still accessible, but not visible or prominent by default
#### Filtering noise
Members need to prove their ability to make coherent arguments. An "application" process may be too high a barrier for widespread adoption, but incentives and mechanisms should align to make this possible in a more automated and behind-the-scenes way.
Erroneous arguments and responses are able to be labeled as such. For example, if someone responds with "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", this can be filtered out as noise with a label like "straw man fallacy". Similarly, duplicates can be labeled as such.
#### Incentives
Community members who consistently make the most useful or helpful contributions get more privileges (stack overflow style).
## Links
* You can't win an argument online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB7CkNNpex0
* Text vs speech in communication: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/27/people-may-seem-more-reasonable-when-you-hear-them-rather-than-read-their-words/?utm_term=.0529e33f8420