Thread Type Discusions

Instead of using a “thread” discussion method, where users make general comments about an idea, we could allow users to submit their comments into specific categories. We could allow people to classify their "reasons to agree" or "reasons to disagree". Some of these classifications could include, books, websites, or logical arguments that agree or disagree with the original idea.

REASONS TO AGREE

This would allow serious users to easily compare all of the reasons to agree or disagree with an idea. If an effort was made to put the best ideas at the top of each column, this would improve usability exponentially.

Programmers could also run a "Google Duel" of the items that support and the items that appose an idea.

We already have enough information on line. Websites that are able to organize that information will get more things actually accomplished.

Truth can be organized into one big whole. Songs, books, websites, quotes should all be organized into reasons to agree and disagree with every idea.

This would lead to more order and organization.

This would allow the idea bank to have people evaluate the validity of the top reasons to AGREE with an idea, on a scale from 1 to 10 before they can submit a reason to DISAGREE with the idea.

This will allow The Idea Bank to build the best ran discussion groups, where good behavior is rewarded.

For instance The Idea Bank could build user profiles, similar to e-bay user profiles, but that would show the tendency of a user to consider the others side of an argument. For instance you could see the average "validity vote" or the validity assigned to a reasons to agree by the individual who is submitting a reasons to disagree with an idea. Some users might always assign a 0 to the validity vote of apposing ideas. If these people always said the reasons to disagree with them had absolutely now validity, these people would be considered "narrow minded" or "close minded", and should not be given as much validity in a system that is supposed to promote the best ideas.

You could also allow people to classify their submission as:

Apposing interest of those who agree and disagree with the idea.

Apposing principles of those who disagree with the idea.

Best book that agrees with the idea.

Best Book that disagrees with the idea.

Best Song that agrees with the idea.

Best Song that disagrees with the idea.

Best website that agrees with the idea.

Best website that disagrees with the idea.

Common interest of those who agree and disagree with the idea.

Most probable interest of those who agree with the idea.

Most probable interest of those who disagree.

Reasons to agree with the idea.

Reasons to disagree with the idea.

Shared principles of those who agree and disagree with the idea.

REASONS TO DISAGREE

This would be too complicated

REASONS TO DISAGREE

Einstein said things should be made as simple as possible, but not more simple. Ideas are complicated. Their good books, with valid points, that agree and disagree with different ideas. To try and come to a conclusion about what to believe, without having all the facts is conterproductive.

People could abuse the system, by submitting popular books that would receive a high "Google duel" score, thus giving credibility to their side of the argument. These books could have nothing to do with the debate.

REASONS TO DISAGREE

For each book that is submitted, people would be able to submit reasons to agree or disagree that that book actually supports the main thesis. They would also be able to vote. Books that everyone says that don't support the main thesis, could give negative points to the idea's score.

This is getting away from the discussion thread model.

REASONS TO DISAGREE

Good. Discussions never lead to any good. With each new post, the conversation topic changes. Their are hundreds of valid reasons to agree or disagree with almost every idea. Their is no way to evaluate the validity of each of these in a logical manor, without separating them into reasons to agree and reasons to disagree, and allowing people to evaluate the validity of each reason, sending the best reasons to the top of their columns.

Discussions never lead to any good. With each new post, the conversation topic changes. Their are hundreds of valid reasons to agree or disagree with almost every idea. Their is no way to evaluate the validity of each of these in a logical manor, without separating them into reasons to agree and reasons to disagree, and allowing people to evaluate the validity of each reason, sending the best reasons to the top of their columns.