Difference between revisions of "Structured debate"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(some reorg)
(link to new "debate mapping" page, which seemed necessary even though there isn't much in it yet)
 
(14 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Overview==
+
<hide>
−
[[category:tools]][[category:terms of convenience]]A [[structured debate]] is an argumentative discussion in which the pieces of the argument are broken down into the smallest arguable chunks ("points"), and the dependencies between supporting points and the larger points which depend on them are clearly indicated.
+
[[page type::article]]
 +
[[thing type::tool]]
 +
[[purpose::dispute resolution]]
 +
[[category:tools]]
 +
[[category:terms of convenience]]
 +
</hide>
 +
==About==
 +
A [[structured debate]] is a [[Issuepedia:Dispute Resolution Technology|dispute resolution technique]] which [[debate mapping|maps the debate]], i.e. breaks down the elements of a disagreement into the smallest arguable chunks ("points") so as to clearly indicate the dependencies between supporting points and the larger points they support or attack as well as the current status of each assertion (i.e. whether it has been refuted or not).
  
 
This helps to prevent a number of common problems with discussions of complex issues:
 
This helps to prevent a number of common problems with discussions of complex issues:
Line 7: Line 14:
 
* significant points falling by the wayside and remaining unanswered
 
* significant points falling by the wayside and remaining unanswered
 
* [[conflating]] multiple points into a single point, which leads easily to making logical fallacies
 
* [[conflating]] multiple points into a single point, which leads easily to making logical fallacies
−
===Goals===
 
−
Any set of rules for truth-driven debate must satisfy a number of criteria, including:
 
−
* It must be possible to determine, at any given moment, which items are agreed upon and which are still in dispute
 
−
* It should be easy to spot when a debater is changing the subject rather than answering a point
 
−
* It should be possible to "unbundle" any point which involves a chain of suppositions (i.e. depends upon multiple sub-points) so that the individual suppositions can be discussed separately
 
−
====Interface====
 
−
Ideally, a structured debate is represented in a manner which provides visual cues for:
 
−
* which side of the argument is being advocated by a particular piece of text
 
−
* whether a given point has been defeated or called into question
 
−
* the dependency structure (which parent-point is being attacked or defended by any given sub-point)
 
−
===Proposed Rules===
 
−
There may be many sets of rules which would meet these goals, but here is a proposed set:
 
−
* Every argument starts with a claim (the root claim) which states one side of the debate as fact.
 
−
* Any claim (the "parent claim") may have zero or more sub-claims
 
−
* Any claim may consist of one or more sub-claims, all of which must be true in order for the claim to be valid (e.g. claim: Socrates is mortal due to being a man; supporting sub-claim: All men are mortal; supporting sub-claim: Socrates is a man.)
 
−
* Any claim may be answered by zero or more response arguments
 
−
* All response arguments must relate to the parent claim in one of the following ways:
 
−
** '''Support''': an argument that the parent claim is true
 
−
** '''Counter''': an argument that the parent claim is false
 
−
* Any claim is disabled if it has no active (non-disabled) sub-claims and at least one active counter-claim
 
−
* Participants in a debate may indicate their approval or disagreement with an item
 
−
** This agreement is strictly binary (agree/disagree); if a participant wishes to draw a finer distinction, s/he should create a claim with which s/he can agree or disagree unilaterally (this rule is somewhat fuzzy at the moment and needs to have some examples to look at)
 
−
** Whenever a participant's agreement/disagreement does not match the logical outcome of the debate (e.g. disagreeing with an item with no active counterpoints, or agreeing with an item which has been refuted), resolving the discrepancy should be somehow included in a to-do list for that participant. Participants may be disqualified or downgraded for allowing discrepancies to remain unanswered for too long (exact details to be worked out later).
 
−
* The outcome of another debate may be used as the argument for a claim, in which case the children of that debate's root claim become children of the current claim, and the same rules apply
 
  
−
Some further refinements will be necessary when adapting this system for making time-dependent decisions (see [[InstaGov]]).
+
See [[project:Structured Debate]] for extensive design discussion.
 +
===FAQ===
 +
* {{hilite|'''Q''': Isn't it [[authoritarian]] to make people follow rules, rather than just allowing open discussion?}}
 +
** '''A''': The structure doesn't restrict what anyone can say; it just helps show whether they're making sense or not. If everyone using this system agrees that one and one equal three, or that the sun rises in the west, the system won't stop them from saying so. If nobody challenges those assertions, then they will stand as true.
 +
* {{hilite|'''Q''': Isn't this turning discussion into a contest, where participants will want their position to [[arguments as soldiers|prevail at any cost]]?}}
 +
** '''A''': The only sense in which this is a contest is that it is arguably a contest of ''ideas'' &ndash; not people. It does eliminate ideas by keeping track of which ones have been shown to have logical or factual flaws, but it does not attach any stigma or virtue to those who propose those ideas, whether those ideas prevail or are culled. Further, an idea which is culled may later be resurrected by new information; no idea is discarded or lost outright.
 +
==Implementations==
 +
* [http://argumentrix.com/wiki/Main_Page Argumentrix] is attempting to stage what appears to be loosely-structured debates using MediaWiki as a platform
 +
* [[Issuepedia:Structured Debate|Issuepedia]] is working on a set of rules for structured debate, eventually to be turned into an internet application with a web interface
 +
** [[:category:debates]] has a list of structured debates using Issuepedia's proposed rules and [[Issuepedia:debaticons|debaticons]]
 +
* [http://internetargument.org/ Calculemus] looks to be a similar idea.
 +
** [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd1LWZAD6fI video]
  
−
===Issuepedia===
+
==Links==
−
Issuepedia provides [[issuepedia:argumenticons|argumenticons]] and associated templates for the purpose of documenting structured debates. We are working on tools for managing and conducting structured debates between two or more participants in realtime.
+
===Reference===
 +
* {{wikipedia|Argument map}} (argument map)
 +
* {{lwwiki|Debate tools}} (debate tools)
  
−
See also [[:category:debates]] &ndash; as of this writing, all of the pages in this category contain structured debates.
+
===News===
 +
{{links/news}}

Latest revision as of 18:13, 11 July 2013

About

A structured debate is a dispute resolution technique which maps the debate, i.e. breaks down the elements of a disagreement into the smallest arguable chunks ("points") so as to clearly indicate the dependencies between supporting points and the larger points they support or attack as well as the current status of each assertion (i.e. whether it has been refuted or not).

This helps to prevent a number of common problems with discussions of complex issues:

  • accidentally (or deliberately) taking opposing points out of context, and answering them as if the context didn't exist
  • the feeling of getting "lost" in the argument due to not knowing what has been settled and what remains to be discussed
  • significant points falling by the wayside and remaining unanswered
  • conflating multiple points into a single point, which leads easily to making logical fallacies

See project:Structured Debate for extensive design discussion.

FAQ

  • Q: Isn't it authoritarian to make people follow rules, rather than just allowing open discussion?
    • A: The structure doesn't restrict what anyone can say; it just helps show whether they're making sense or not. If everyone using this system agrees that one and one equal three, or that the sun rises in the west, the system won't stop them from saying so. If nobody challenges those assertions, then they will stand as true.
  • Q: Isn't this turning discussion into a contest, where participants will want their position to prevail at any cost?
    • A: The only sense in which this is a contest is that it is arguably a contest of ideas – not people. It does eliminate ideas by keeping track of which ones have been shown to have logical or factual flaws, but it does not attach any stigma or virtue to those who propose those ideas, whether those ideas prevail or are culled. Further, an idea which is culled may later be resurrected by new information; no idea is discarded or lost outright.

Implementations

  • Argumentrix is attempting to stage what appears to be loosely-structured debates using MediaWiki as a platform
  • Issuepedia is working on a set of rules for structured debate, eventually to be turned into an internet application with a web interface
  • Calculemus looks to be a similar idea.

Links

Reference

News

Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Structured_debate&oldid=31791"