Structured debate/rules - Revision history

Woozle: plaintext intro

2019-11-12T02:01:49Z

plaintext intro

Woozle: /* Terms */

2019-11-12T01:56:38Z

Terms

Woozle: moved lots of stuff here from parent page; rearranged more sensibly

2019-11-12T01:56:02Z

moved lots of stuff here from parent page; rearranged more sensibly

Woozle: link to new /meta subpage

2013-01-18T16:28:24Z

link to new /meta subpage

Woozle: plaintext version link, curatorial notes, terminology

2013-01-18T16:04:48Z

plaintext version link, curatorial notes, terminology

Woozle: adapted "connectivity" section from elsewhere (was "refinements"); tidied formatting, moved examples over to right

2013-01-18T15:32:29Z

adapted "connectivity" section from elsewhere (was "refinements"); tidied formatting, moved examples over to right

Woozle: Woozle moved page Structured Debate/v2009 to Structured debate/rules without leaving a redirect: post-import reorganization

2013-01-18T15:18:23Z

Woozle moved page Structured Debate/v2009 to Structured debate/rules without leaving a redirect: post-import reorganization

Woozle: 3 revisions: more pages that should be here

2013-01-18T14:31:59Z

3 revisions: more pages that should be here

Woozle: moved "exploratory option" here, since it parallels the "informal option" in the 2010.03 version; moved example here as well, since it uses this version of the terminology

2010-03-07T15:41:15Z

moved "exploratory option" here, since it parallels the "informal option" in the 2010.03 version; moved example here as well, since it uses this version of the terminology

Woozle: moved Issuepedia:Structured Debate/rules/addenda to Issuepedia:Structured Debate/v2009: naming versions by date instead of by capability, so the progression is clearer; also lets us include the terminology along with the rules

2010-03-07T15:37:45Z

moved Issuepedia:Structured Debate/rules/addenda to Issuepedia:Structured Debate/v2009: naming versions by date instead of by capability, so the progression is clearer; also lets us include the terminology along with the rules

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:01, 12 November 2019
Line 82:		Line 82:

	Later on, we might add categorization-tagging of each point so we could (for example) quickly look up all of a given participant's statements on a given issue, or all participants' statements on that issue. (This would also require the ability for participants to go back and clarify or comment on their positions, especially if they change in the light of later evidence.)		Later on, we might add categorization-tagging of each point so we could (for example) quickly look up all of a given participant's statements on a given issue, or all participants' statements on that issue. (This would also require the ability for participants to go back and clarify or comment on their positions, especially if they change in the light of later evidence.)
		+	==Debate-hostile environments==
		+	In theory, a structured debate can be held in an unstructured plaintext discussion environment such as Google+ or Facebook; rules and an example for doing this are [[/plaintext\|here]]. This format does require significantly more discipline from the participants, however.

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 While sentient beings will inevitably be illogical at times, mapping the debate should make it clear (or at least much clearer) to any reasonable observer &ndash; that is, any observer who is honestly ''attempting'' to seek the truth &ndash; where the illogic lies: which conclusions follows logically, and which do not.
 ==Terms==
-''The following lists seem to have grown organically in separate locations, and the divisions between them may need to be rethought.)''
+''The following lists seem to have grown organically in separate locations, and the divisions between them may need to be rethought.''
 ===Debate terminology===
@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 '''Curatorial notes''': Another explanation of the rules, written later than the above was originally written, is archived [[/v2010.03|here]]. The explanation above is based on an earlier (2009) explanation and should probably be updated to use the 2010 terminology.
 ==Cross-connections==
 * Since multiple political arguments may hinge on a particular fact, the outcome of any debate may be used as a claim within another debate, in which case the children of that debate's root claim become children of the current claim, and the same rules apply. This lets us reuse already-established truths rather than having to hash them out again each time.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-__TOC__
+{| style="float: right; background: #cceeff; border: 1px solid black;" width=30%
 |-
+|<small><h2>Example</h2>
 * '''claim''': Socrates is mortal
 ** '''support''': Socrates is mortal because he is a man.
@@ Line 13: / Line 11: @@
 ** '''counter''': Socrates's works have endured for millennia, therefore he is immortal.
 *** '''counter''': This is an argument that Socrates's ''works'' are immortal, not that he ''himself'' is immortal.
 |}
-The structure of a [[structured debate]] resembles an inverted chain of reasoning; we start with a conclusion, then argue over both supportive and contradictory evidence until it becomes clear whether the initial claim is adequately supported.
+__TOC__
 Other sets of rules are possible, but they must satisfy the non-negotiable [[/meta|meta-rules]] of reasoned debate.
-==Rules==
+==Reasoning==
 * Every argument starts with a '''keyclaim''' which asserts as fact the subject of the debate.
 * Any '''claim''' may be answered by zero or more '''response claim'''s
@@ Line 36: / Line 59: @@
 For example, a claim may have several counterclaims, but if they have all been countered as well, then the main claim remains active and will be considered true.
-An example of how to follow these rules without any specialized software (e.g. within a nonthreaded forum or social network) is given [[/plaintext|here]].
+===Point terminology===
+* '''keyclaim''' (aka ''"target claim", "starting claim", "mainpoint"'') -- the starting point of a debate; the claim that is ultimately under debate within a given scope
 * '''point''': an argument for or against a claim
 * '''parent''': the point which a claim is supporting or countering. Every point has a parent except for the keyclaim.
-* '''subpoint''': "response claim"
+* '''subpoint''' (aka ''"response claim"'')
-* '''support point''': propoint
+* '''support point''': (aka ''"propoint"'')
-* '''counter point''': conpoint
+* '''counter point''': (aka ''"conpoint"'')
-==Connectivity==
-A structured debate is just part of a toolkit which is intended to be assembled and interconnected into a sort of [[expository ecosystem]] which will generally help promote rational decisionmaking.
+An example of how to follow these rules without any specialized software (e.g. within a nonthreaded forum or social network) is given [[/plaintext|here]]. (It's a lot of work, though; hence the need for software.)
 * Since multiple political arguments may hinge on a particular fact, the outcome of any debate may be used as a claim within another debate, in which case the children of that debate's root claim become children of the current claim, and the same rules apply. This lets us reuse already-established truths rather than having to hash them out again each time.
 * In order to make participants more accountable for their decisions, we might require that every issue up for vote be stated as a structured debate claim. If an individual votes against the conclusion reached by the debate, we might require them to sign off on each supporting argument they are thereby disagreeing with, or perhaps display each active counterargument in a publicly visible way. This will put some "peer pressure" on individuals not to simply ignore the results of the debates, require some accountability for those who do, and also give a better idea of which premises are being taken less seriously.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 |}
 The structure of a [[structured debate]] resembles an inverted chain of reasoning; we start with a conclusion, then argue over both supportive and contradictory evidence until it becomes clear whether the initial claim is adequately supported.
 ==Rules==
 * Every argument starts with a '''keyclaim''' which asserts as fact the subject of the debate.

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 The structure of a [[structured debate]] resembles an inverted chain of reasoning; we start with a conclusion, then argue over both supportive and contradictory evidence until it becomes clear whether the initial claim is adequately supported.
 ==Rules==
-* Every argument starts with a '''target claim''' which asserts as fact the subject of the debate.
+* Every argument starts with a '''keyclaim''' which asserts as fact the subject of the debate.
 * Any '''claim''' may be answered by zero or more '''response claim'''s
 * Each '''response claim''' must relate to the target claim in one of the following ways:
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 For example, a claim may have several counterclaims, but if they have all been countered as well, then the main claim remains active and will be considered true.
 ==Connectivity==
 A structured debate is just part of a toolkit which is intended to be assembled and interconnected into a sort of [[expository ecosystem]] which will generally help promote rational decisionmaking.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-This version of the rules allows for "informal" points and "bundling". It also uses slightly different terminology.
+__TOC__
 ==Rules==
 * Every argument starts with a '''target claim''' which asserts as fact the subject of the debate.
@@ Line 18: / Line 33: @@
 For example, a claim may have several counterclaims, but if they have all been countered as well, then the main claim remains active and will be considered true.
-==Example==
+==Connectivity==
-(using text terms rather than icons)
+A structured debate is just part of a toolkit which is intended to be assembled and interconnected into a sort of [[expository ecosystem]] which will generally help promote rational decisionmaking.
-* '''claim''': Socrates is mortal
-** '''support''': Socrates is mortal because he is a man.
+* Since multiple political arguments may hinge on a particular fact, the outcome of any debate may be used as a claim within another debate, in which case the children of that debate's root claim become children of the current claim, and the same rules apply. This lets us reuse already-established truths rather than having to hash them out again each time.
-*** '''requirement''': All men are mortal.
+* In order to make participants more accountable for their decisions, we might require that every issue up for vote be stated as a structured debate claim. If an individual votes against the conclusion reached by the debate, we might require them to sign off on each supporting argument they are thereby disagreeing with, or perhaps display each active counterargument in a publicly visible way. This will put some "peer pressure" on individuals not to simply ignore the results of the debates, require some accountability for those who do, and also give a better idea of which premises are being taken less seriously.
-*** '''requirement''': Socrates is a man.
+* There should also be some way for individuals to vote their (dis)approval of any claim in any debate. This would:
-** '''support''': Socrates is dead, therefore he was mortal.
+** let us get a very quick and dynamic indication of how much support there is for any given "fact" in our debate database
-*** '''requirement''': Socrates is dead.
+** let us provide, as an almost competitive kind of thing, individuals to be notified when claims they have "endorsed" are contradicted, e.g. "Your claim has been challeged! You agreed that ''(text of claim)'', but this has been countered with ''(text of counter)''. Do you wish to respond? [link]"
-*** '''requirement''': Death is sufficient to demonstrate mortality.
+* Some further refinements will probably be necessary when adapting this system for making time-dependent decisions.
 ==Exploratory Option==
-It looks like it would be useful to have an option for a less rigorous but still structured debate, where territory is still being mapped out and participants are not so much ''disagreeing'' with each other as engaging in a sort of question-and-answer volley. A good example is [[User:Woozle/debate/progressive conservatism#Differences|here]]. "Exploratory" seems like a good name for this mode. It would omit the tracking of pro-and-con and focus more on identifying the individual participants, which establishes individual beliefs and positions at various locations in the issue's "terrain" without necessarily invoking conflict.
+It may be useful to have an option for a less ''rigorous'' but still ''structured'' debate, where territory is still being mapped out and participants are not so much ''disagreeing'' with each other as engaging in a sort of question-and-answer volley. A good example is [[issuepedia:User:Woozle/debate/progressive conservatism#Differences|here]]. "Exploratory" seems like a good name for this mode. It would omit the tracking of pro-and-con and focus more on identifying the individual participants, which establishes individual beliefs and positions at various locations in the issue's "terrain" without necessarily inciting conflict.
 Later on, we might add categorization-tagging of each point so we could (for example) quickly look up all of a given participant's statements on a given issue, or all participants' statements on that issue. (This would also require the ability for participants to go back and clarify or comment on their positions, especially if they change in the light of later evidence.)

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:18, 18 January 2013
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:31, 18 January 2013
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:37, 7 March 2010
(No difference)