Structured debate/rules/plaintext
This is an attempt to specify a set of rules by which these rules might be implemented within a non-threaded discussion environment, without any special assistance from software.
Those rules can be summarized as:
- Any claim that has been neither challenged (i.e. somebody says they disagree with it) nor rebutted (someone has posted a conpoint) shall be considered TRUE.
- Any claim that has at least one TRUE conpoint shall be considered FALSE.
Rules of Non-Threaded Engagement
- 1. Every paragraph that is to be considered part of the formal debate must be prefixed by one of these words: "CLAIM", "PRO", or "CON", followed by an index number.
- 2. For a CLAIM, the index number is an integer. These should start with (and increment by) 1 -- e.g. "CLAIM 1" would be the first, "CLAIM 2" would be the next, etc.
- 3. For each PRO or CON, the index number is based on the index number of the parent (i.e. the point to which it is responding), plus a decimal followed by an integer. These should also start with (and increment by) one.
- 4. When a PRO or CON point depends on the truth of a set of statements, each of these statements should be prefixed by "SUB" followed by an index number (following the same numbering rules as PRO and CON).
- 5. When the state of a CLAIM is changed due to a CON point, either participant may note this by saying "CLAIM n REFUTED" or "CLAIM n AFFIRMED".
Where possible, the words "CLAIM", "PRO", "CON", "AFFIRMED" and "REFUTED" should be formatted in such a way as to stand out. If they cannot be bolfaced or highlighted using color, then being written in all-capitals (as here) should suffice.
Example
- CLAIM 1: Socrates is mortal.
- PRO 1.1: Socrates is a man, and men are mortal.
- SUB 1.1.1: Socrates is a man.
- SUB 1.1.2: Men are mortal.
- CON 1.1.1.1: Socrates is a God, and Gods are not mortal.
- CLAIM 1 REFUTED.
- ("Gods are not mortal" is undisputed.)
- CON 1.1.1.1.1: Socrates is a God.
- PRO 1.1.1.1.1.1: There is no evidence that Socrates is a God.
- CLAIM 1 AFFIRMED.
Note that it doesn't matter which "side" any participant is on; either may break down the arguments of the other (as in the CON side thinking they have scored a point with 1.1.1.1, and then the other person coming along and showing that this isn't true).
Problems will arise when one side or the other uses bad logic to structure their argument; I need to work out a system for dealing with this.