Difference between revisions of "Structured debate"

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
- category:debates has a list of structured debates using Issuepedia's proposed rules and debaticons
Calculemus looks to be a similar idea.
- video

Links

Reference

Wikipedia (argument map)
LessWrong Wiki (debate tools)

News

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==Overview==
+<hide>
-[[category:tools]][[category:terms of convenience]]A [[structured debate]] is a [[Issuepedia:Dispute Resolution Technology|dispute resolution technique]] which breaks down the elements of a disagreement into the smallest arguable chunks ("points"), clearly indicating the dependencies between supporting points and the larger points they support or attack.
+[[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:
@@ Line 7: / Line 14: @@
 * significant points falling by the wayside and remaining unanswered
 * [[conflating]] multiple points into a single point, which leads easily to making logical fallacies
-===Goals===
-====Structure====
-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
-As much as possible, the system should be set up so that no individual has any more power than any other. There will always need to be sysops, of course, but they should not have to intervene except under extraordinary circumstances of obvious spamming or other overtly bad behavior. Creating mechanisms to deal with bad behavior will be one of the main challenges; see [[#Potential Problems]] below.
-====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)
-The interface should make it easy and intuitive for untrained users to add additional points (supporting or countering).
-The software should automatically track the status (supported, unanswered/open, or defeated) of each point, in order to minimize the administrative overhead of enforcing the basic debate rules. (There is a potential problem in this, however; see [[#Potential Problems]] below.)
-====Usage====
-In order to be truly useful, [[structured debate]] needs to be part of a system which recognizes it as a valid means of resolving disputes (what [[David Brin]] calls an "[[accountability arena]]").
-A structured debate module will be one of the core elements of [[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]
 ==Links==
 ===Reference===
 * {{wikipedia|Argument map}} (argument map)
+* {{lwwiki|Debate tools}} (debate tools)
 ===News===
 {{links/news}}