• "Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors."
  • Thomas H. Huxley

• "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments".
  • Friedrich Nietzsche

Putting reasons to agree and disagree in separate columns allows me to do some cool things.

Reasons to agree

1. We should organize reason to agree and disagree with ideas into two separate columns.
2. Putting reasons to agree and disagree in separate columns, could let you create a computer algorithm that gives points to the main idea, depending on things like the number of reasons to agree & disagree.
3. Every issue should have it's own website with a comprehensive list of reasons to agree or disagree.
4. Putting reasons to agree and disagree in separate columns allows me to put the best reasons at the top of each column
5. Could allow me to perform a Google duel between all the items that agree and disagree, which could represent the overall strength of the idea.
6. I could let people rate the reasons to agree or disagree, were the overall score of the reasons that agree contribute to the idea, and the overall score of the reasons that disagree take away from the score of the main idea.
7. I could assign a score to each reason based on the number of reasons that agree with it. The overall score of the reasons in the "reasons to agree" category would contribute to the overall score of the main idea.
8. This will allow us to talk to our ancestors, and include all the smart things that they said, about issues that we still face today. As we start thinking about this, we can see why a web site like the history channel may want to adopt it. What does Abraham Lincoln have to say about issues we are facing today?
9. Like Abraham Lincoln said, it is not so important that we pray that God is on ourside, but that we are on God's side. The same thing about the truth. We shoudn't work to try to prove that the truth is on our side, but that we are on the truth's side. If we have a truth promoting forum, then it is safe to investigate both sides of an issue. We have nothing to fear from those who would disagree with us, as long as we are on the side of truth, and we have a format that alows for rational debate. Using lists of reasons to agree or disagree is a very good way of thouroughly investigating an issue, without letting either side hi-jack the discusion, by changing the topic, talking too long. Each side should bring their best arguments, and list them on a page. If we are not in a shouting mach, or competing for a limited amount of time, why not thoroughly investigate an idea? We don't need to silence the other side, we just need to prove that they are wrong.
10. Usually, one point won't convince someone they are wrong. Everyone needs to feel that they got all of their reasons out on the table. We are not discounting people's beliefs, we are responding to them.

Conflict Resolution on the Web

Everyone has conflict in his or her lives. The source of conflict is that everyone has different reasons for doing things. When we find ourselves in groups what other people do affects us. Conflict arises when we do not understand, or accept other people’s reasons for doing things. People’s reasons for doing things come from their values and their needs. These values and needs help people decide what should be done with problems that they face. I would like to create a web site should be created that allows people the opportunity to brainstorm and debate different solutions to problems. To help them get to this step they will first be asked to list their interest, needs, and goals. I will explain how this web site follows the principles of successful dispute resolution.

Brain Storming Solutions

One of the techniques taught in Getting to Yes is the use of the brainstorming session. I would like to invite the online community to create a list of all of the possible solutions to the problems that they face. This fulfills a technique taught in getting to yes, “generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.” My web site will become a way of sharing, and debating the validity of ideas on these list. People would come to my site and they would find a problem that interests them. For instance, under the section for current events they may find the “US & China spy plane incident.”

If they clicked on this problem, a web page would open containing a list of possible solutions. Also people from each side could list their interest and goals. Perhaps these lists would become too large. However the Internet offers great opportunities in the organization of data. People could be allowed to vote on weather or not they think certain interest or solutions to a problem are valid. The interests that are the most valid could rise to the top. This would make the site user-friendlier. Perhaps the comments from the Chinese concerning their interest will only be able to be evaluated from other Chinese.

They way that I have just described the evaluation of ideas on the site would be in line with another method taught in Getting to Yes, to separate the people from the problem. When someone is voting on weather or not they agree with something someone has said, they can only vote on it because of the merits of what was said, because they will not know the person who said it.

Having people list their interest with respect to a specific problem, would meet the criteria for successful negotiation to focus on interest, not positions. It would also help confronting sides understand each other better. Also unlike any other means of conflict resolution this web site will constantly update itself. This web site has a dynamic ability to stay current. What’s popular one day may not be popular another day.

This web site will be able to do many things that no mediator could do. It can track the opinions of millions of people. It can keep people from voting twice, by having them log in. Also your votes could be tracked. This information could be used for a variety of purposes such as the political campaign. For instance if you wanted to run for election you could instantly publish your specific opinion on hundreds of issues. If a large number of voters had this information for one candidate, it could force other candidates to follow suit. This could force politicians to be specific, cutting down on annoying one issue adds. This web site would also be a sociologist dream come true. No more calling people and asking questions. Sociologist could join the effort, and help ask better questions. Polling agencies could also get involved. Sociologist could track trends as people age, or according to their location, sex, race, or any other information. This could go a long way towards an on line democracy. Mediators and lawyers could also use this web site to learn from how other problems are being solved.

This web will help people resolve conflict because it can also help people keep track of information. Lots of web sites seek to express positions, and the reasons for believing them. However no web site has yet sought to address all truth. On this web site all information would end up as a support for some opinion. We are drowning in information, but the problem is not too much information, it is that we have now way of dealing with it. You go to one person’s web site to learn what rush Limbaugh thinks; you go to another web site to learn what All Gore thinks. You go to another web site to learn what Abraham Lincoln once said. There has never been any attempt to summarize the knowledge of the world into one whole. However with a million hands, and a system that promotes the survival of the fittest idea, that keeps getting better, conflicts will solve themselves magically. While you sleep thousands of people will be working on a solution. Highlights of the worlds best essays, newspaper articles, books, speeches, and debates will evolve into a united whole. This web site will become a great frame of reference. We can look at the best reasons for believing or not believing anything.

I have explained in great detail the ability of this web site to keep track of a list of; solutions to specific problems, needs and goals. However there is much more that can be done on a web site dedicated to solving problems. A detailed explanation of some of my ideas would become very complicated without seeing a working model. However the concept of a discussion board is familiar to many savvy Internet users. Up to this point my web sight sounds much like a bunch of different list where the best ideas go to the top. However I would also like to incorporate some of the back and forth discussion that takes place on many discussion boards. In other words an individual could look at any of the proposed solutions to a problem, and he could give argument for why he disagrees or agrees. However (once again) the best back and forth exchanges will go to the top. A fourth portion of my web site could contain these arguments about positions. We learn in getting to yes the dangers of positional bargaining, however I believe that it could serve its purpose. A convenient way of organizing this part of my site would be to state a specific position, such as “Late term abortion should be illegal” and then letting people contribute list of reasons why they think that it should or should not be legal. Of course this part of the web sight would follow the procedure developed in the other parts of the web. The reasons that gain the most acceptances as valid reasons will float to the top. This part of the web could work much like a discussion board. If you click on a specific reason for agreeing or disagreeing, you could see the percentage of people who agree with it. You could look at a list of celebrities who agree with it. You could see how its popularity has waxed or waned with time. Also you could see the top 10 reasons why people agree or disagree with this reason. In theory you could also go to each of these reasons and see why people agreed or disagreed with these reasons. According to theory you would eventually get back to some grounding principle, president, law, or scientific principle.

What makes a lot of this web site possible is the ability to send people threw a pre-determined process. For instance a person might have to click through 5 reasons in favor of a specific belief before he is allowed to disagree with it. If the evaluation process thrives then this dynamic give and take will constantly lead to better positions. Basically this is just an implementation of the scientific process. Those position solutions, interest, and goals that are described clearly, and are truly valid and logical will get the most acceptances.

In addition this web site cuts out the middle man of most big disputes; the media. The media doesn’t have the time to go into any issue in depth. Their main purpose is to simplify, summarize, declare a winner and looser, and get on with their main job of entertaining. Right now we rely on the media to tell us what everyone wants and thinks. Politicians have to pay the media millions of dollars to throw mud on a 20 second mud-slinging contest. With this web site apposing sides could speak directly to each other. William Buckley could dispute directly with Bill Clinton, and George Bush could talk directly with Sadamn Husagn. Of course Abraham Lincoln will also debate with Fredrick Douglas, in the great debate section of the web site.

Another advantage of this web site is that forces each side of an issue to discuss the issue directly with each other. Perhaps the best arguments for each side would show up on the same page, just in separate columns. The other side will be able to break in any time, by inserting a link to his opinion, without even disrupting the first opinion. Having the other sides best argument right there, and the ability for people to check the accuracy of what you say will keep you from exaggerating, blaming, using roadblocks, or lying. If you say something stupid on this web site, you will get caught. Your words are right there. I think one reason arguments get so bad is that rival sides never actually come face to face with each other. Sure they discuss the other person’s side of view, but they discuss it with people who agree with them. The Arabs sit around talking about what the Jews want, and the Jews sit around talking about what the Arabs want. But neither side is totally honest with each other, and their opinions never come out in the open so that they can be argued over. They hide and become passive aggressive so that no one can address the hidden issues. We know that passive aggression is one of the most difficult kinds to deal with. That’s why we need a forum in which issues can be discussed over the Internet. This web site would let people vent their problems, and see right in front of their faces how many people have read and agree with their idea. They will also see the most popular reasons why people support or disagree with their idea.

Right now on the interent apposing sides rearely come face to face with each other. They would never list their opinion and then give a link to their apponents best arguments. You may find an Internet address posted by people of different sides of an issue. However, they probably don’t know of each other’s existence. There is now way for disputes to be resolved by people who are not talking. If you read what they say, you will find that they are not talking with each other. These people are on soapboxes talking to anyone who will listen, and they about five miles apart.

Chad Rooms

You want a live discussion. You go to a chat room about your issue. However you find two high school kids talking about Brittany Spears. You try talking to them. However ever time you have a discussion with a new person, you have to start at ground zero, as though now one had ever argued that issue before. This problem with chat rooms makes you start over, with every discussion you have. Any advances you make in understanding will be lost when you turn of the chat window. What would happen to science if scientist followed this method? What if every scientific record was written in a format that could not be re-traced or examined for those of other generations? What if scientist wrote everything in sand? People have been arguing about things for thousands of years. Why do we always have to start at ground zero, when we meet someone and want to discuss issues. As we start thinking about this, we can see why a web site like the history channel may want to adopt it. What does Abraham Lincoln have to say about issues we are facing today?

It is as though we are so self-righteous as to believe that no one else besides us has ever argued about certain ideas, and we don’t care what they said. It is very presumptuous of us to think that we can find truth, independent of what the rest of the world thinks.

Current Events and the Media

We would have a section of this page designated to news events. People could see how news events fit into the framework of why people do things. You could see where a news event is used by people of evidense for certain courses of action. News in and of itself doesn’t do any good. The fact that people are dying in Africa because of aids does nothing unless its used as a specific reason for a specific course of action. Right now the news media acts like a lawer, telling each side what the other side said, often getting things wrong, creating distrust and confusion on both sides of the isle.

The media, much like a lawyer, has the motivation for money, not just the best solution. They don’t necessarily want the republicans and democrats to find the best solution: they want a juicy story. They want to come up with the weeks list of "winners and losers" to fit into their "oversimplified" "dummied-down" story line. The US News even weekly section entitled: Winners and Losers. In this role the media plays the person who whispers in each contestants ear what the other person said about them, and tells the unwitting partisan to go duke it out in one more round.

Why do we rely on the media to tell us what the issues are and what we should think about them?

Other Comparisons

When we step back and try to compare this web site to other things out there are lots of analogies come to mind. This web site is like a continuous poll that runs 24 hours a day. It is much like a discussion board, but more dynamic.

This web site is a hybrid of many things. It is much like a stock exchange in that it tracks the rise and fall of the popularity of brain stormed solutions, much like the stock exchange tracks the popularity of companies. Like nature my “idea stock exchange” promotes the survival of the fittest. To continue the theme of a stock exchange each position could get an Idea Executive Officer, who is in charge of maintaining the web site. His job would be to drum up support for his cause. Perhaps George Bush would become an IEO for the belief that we should lower taxes. I can see them on CNN talking about their position much like CEO’s talk about their stock, “I think we are going to be doing much better, in the 3rd quarter of this year, after people pay their taxes.” Perhaps the IEO could get paid revenues from advertising on the site for his position. He could make editorial comments or make the categories for additions to his web site to go into.

There are many things that could be done to make this web site better. In the business world a major concern is a monopoly. Perhaps a business only succeed because it succeeds in the past, even though a different company may be better for consumer. It is foreseeable too that on our web site that some ideas will become popular, and stay popular. Much like a business with a monopoly, it may bee seen that it gets preferred treatment, because it is at the top. This could be overcome by having a section, much like the business world that talks about good new ideas.

I would also have a spot on the web for conflicts of specific parties. There are many parties that are in conflict such as All Gore and George bush, or the Israelis and the Palestinians. In other parts of my web site I would try to address the “problem of violence in the middle east” without making it a case of group a vs. group b. Assuming that these portions of my web site we have already tried to list all of the interest of every individual party we can go forward with addressing the conflicts between specific groups. This section of the web site would address conflicts in which violence is taking place, or certain groups have declared other groups as their enemy. This part of the web site may have to be framed in a conflict between group A and group B manor.

The purpose of this side of the group is to lesson the tension between these groups and to increase understanding.

Extreme care will need to be used in making this portion of the web site most productive. Some groups in side this portion of the site have killed the members of the other side of their conflict. Emotions will run very high. But even if this was nothing more than a discussion board in which appeasing sides could vent their frustration, some good may be done. However I believe we can do much better than that. Again we must follow the principles of successful dispute resolution.

Getting to yes teaches us that we all have mutually overlapping common interest, and it is best if both sides of a dispute physiologically work together against a problem instead of working against each other. However we must be realistic and acknowledge the guns that different groups have pointed at each other. This web site can do some things to help these groups too.

On the front page of this portion of the sight we will have a list of common interest, goals, and values. Perhaps before you can vote or submit conflicting goals, interest, or values, you will have to vote on weather you agree or disagree with the top ten positions of your advisary.

There are many advantages of having a spot for violent debates. This would help focus interest on the issues that need the most attention. Common interest, goals, and values between groups that are fighting can be discussed.

A possible problem comes with the freedom of anonymity. People may feel too free to express malicious ideas. In addition traditional problems will arise between people as the work their way to the real issue, and deal with roadblocks in the dynamic exchange of ideas. Creating a way that the people on the site can regulate themselves could solve this problem. One way to create a web site that allows freedom, but is self-regulating would be direct people in the way of evaluating solutions, interest, and goals. We could ask people if the way the solution, interest, or goal was worded might cause people problems. Perhaps someone worded their position in a partisan way, or maybe used hostile emotions. Each of these separate issues could be a plus or minus, that sends your idea up or down the slide. Questions could be asked such as, “Is this action consistent with principles? Which ones?” If people know before hand the criteria with which their ideas will be judged, they will frame their comments in the best way.

One thing this web site will be very good at is establishing the will of the majority. Another possible problem comes from the assumption that the majority of people will always choose the best option. The fact is that the majority of people are not very well educated about very complex problems. Another fact is that we live in a republic not a democracy. I believe the purpose of a republic is to vote for the best individual to represent us. The majority of southerners saw no problem with slavery. The majority of Germans were willing to go to war in WWI and WWII. The majority of teen-age boys like Brittany Spears. Clearly there are major problems with the majority of people. In fact is it best that scientific principles are up for debate? Would a wise community plan result if the will of the majority were responsible for designing the sewer system, and waste treatment plant? Would you want to live in a country where national emergencies in delicate diplomatic situations, such as the plain crash with China, where handled by the will of the majority?

Perhaps we could have a portion of the web site that high lightens the issues that have the biggest discrepancies between experts and the masses. One option for deciding who experts are, would be to let professors at colleges be experts in their field. We could ask colleges to keep us updated with a list of professors, and their user-names. We could inter this into the data base, and the computer would do the rest, giving them the ability to have more status in their field.

A possible solution to this would be to have a separate debate with each stated problem, as to how the solution should be solved. A heading like, “What objective criteria could be used to resolve this conflict.” It seems probably that a variety of solutions would become most popular for different problems. Perhaps some of these suggested objective criteria would be to let the UN decide, or a panel of independent experts. Should a coin be tossed? Should a governmental task force be formed to study the issue? Should it be a matter for lawyers, the president, congress, UN, or other institution resolve? This is yet another way that the principles of Getting to Yes could be implemented. In getting to Yes we learn that whenever you have a debate, you are really having two debates. One about the issue, the other about how the issue will be resolved.

Building this site will focus a lot of attention on the best way for coming to a solution. As people are herded threw the process of brainstorming on this site, it will become a natural response to a problem, along with the other techniques that we have discussed.

There are lots of people out there that would be interested in making this web site. Many companies now sponsor discussion boards. Yahoo, MSN, NBC, CBS and other company’s sponsor chat room.

In conclusion the principles of dispute resolution can be applied anywhere people have conflict as long as they are willing to meet at a common table and discuss their differences. The internet is the largest table that mankind has ever met, and thus offers great opportunities for conflict resolution. However communication on the Internet will only bring people together to the degree that they follow the principles of successful dispute resolution. I believe that an arena can be built on the Internet that will naturally promote successful dispute resolution.

I think Mitt Romney should use the online debate format I explain below, to allow users to post reasons to agree and disagree with his beliefs.

The current online discussion forums cause more conflict than they solve. There are many reasons that these online discussion forums are so frustrating. Internet forums that do not try and organize the different aspects of a debate are much like an argument where no one is in charge, and everyone can instantly change the subject. Sure the internet offers everyone a voice, but a voice without order is just noise.

A car with multiple searing weals would not work. Thread type discussion forums that allow each new post to change the subject will never get anywhere.

However we can allow everyone to “talk” at once if we allow users to organize their contributions. For instance if we give one page per issue, we could then allow users to interact with that issue by posting their comments within a column of reasons to agree or within the reasons to disagree column.

This simple innovation of allowing people to tag the innovation of allowing people to tag their post as a reason to agree or disagree will revolutionize the way we debate, come to conclusions, and think.

Allowing people to categorize their arguments as a reason to agree or disagree will allow us to compare the number of reasons to agree or disagree with a belief.

Of course the quality of the reasons to agree or disagree with a belief is as important as the number of reasons to agree or disagree with that belief. There are many ways to evaluate or allow users to the quality of a reason to agree or disagree with an idea.

Counting scheme’s can be devised to reflect the cumulative perceived validity of all the reasons to agree or disagree with an idea. For example each reason to agree or disagree could be assigned a value based on user feedback resulting in a numerical value for each reason, and therefore a total score for the reasons to agree vs. disagree.

An additional and more elegant way to evaluate the validity of each reason to agree or disagree is to allow users to provide reasons to agree and disagree with them.

This type of discussion forum will allow a significant leap forward by integrating statistical analysis techniques with debate forums. For instance confidence intervals can be assigned to each belief based on the number of reasons posted, the percent difference between reasons to agree vs. disagree, the amount of variance between.

Using lists that try to get to the main point quickly, do not allow for advertising. And that is what is being done when someone uses a lot of words to describe their idea… they are advertising. But when you use lists of reasons to agree or disagree, the issue becomes clear. You see the complexity. People don't want to see that there are good reasons to agree or disagree with both sides. They want to stick with their prejudices and previous conclusions. They want to gloss over everything with a nice wordy paragraph that hides the shortcomings of their thinking with wordiness.

The Need For This Site

Some say that God is order and that Satan is chaos. I think having reasons to agree and disagree with an idea on separate pages, or in a thread-type format is confusing. For example, some people think Mitt Romney is bad, and they give reasons to agree with their point of view on their websites. People that like Mitt Romney do the same thing on their website. I think we should bring all of their reasons to one webpage and organize them. I would especially like for Mitt Romney blogers to integrate the things they post by subject on this site. I think if we organize Mitt Romney data in such a way that it promotes order, that it will lead to one logical conclusion: he should be our next president.