Structured debate

Overview

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.

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

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.

Implementations

• 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

Links

Reference

• Wikipedia (argument map)