| 
View
 

Page Layout

Page history last edited by Mike 1 month, 2 weeks ago

Forum and Page Design

1. One Page Per Topic

  • Each topic is given a dedicated page, such as "Trump's Intelligence."
  • Beliefs about the topic are organized along a continuum. For example:
    • For "Trump's Intelligence," beliefs might range from "Trump is Stupid" to "Trump is a Genius."
    • Each belief on the continuum is assigned a number, such as -100% to +100%, to allow for structured comparisons.
      • Example: "Trump is the Worst US President" (-100%) to "Trump is the Best US President" (+100%).
  • This structure allows for a wide range of beliefs to be explored and compared logically, not just debated in extremes.

 

2. One Page Per Belief

  • Each belief under a topic has a page, with all relevant arguments and evidence organized together.
  • Similar ways of expressing the same belief are grouped using semantic analysis (e.g., grouping synonyms and ligated antonyms).
    • Example: "Trump is not smart" and "Trump is dumb" would be combined to avoid duplication.
  • Users can sort arguments and evidence related to a belief by:
    • Similarity
    • Date
    • Author
    • Quality
    • Length
  • Goal:
    • To identify all the truly unique reasons to agree and disagree with each belief, creating a comprehensive analysis of each issue.
    • By eliminating redundancy and isolating unique arguments, the system ensures the analysis is complete, not fragmented or repetitive.

 

3. Pros and Cons on the Same Page

  • Each belief page presents pro and con arguments side by side, allowing users to see supporting and opposing perspectives in one place.
  • Arguments are ranked by the performance of their pro/con sub-arguments, ensuring the strongest, most well-supported arguments appear first.
  • This structure encourages critical evaluation of the content rather than subjective agreement or disagreement.

 

4. Linkage Scores

  • Linkage Strength: Arguments are evaluated for how strongly they link to a conclusion. Specifically, the system addresses the question:
    • "If the argument were true, would it necessarily strengthen (or weaken) the conclusion?"
  • Example:
    • The belief "We have global warming" might have a strong standalone score, but its linkage strength determines how much it supports a conclusion like "We should have a carbon tax."
  • Purpose of Linkage Scores:
    • This approach ensures the system evaluates the truth of an argument and its relevance and logical connection to the conclusion.

 

5. Cost-Benefit Analysis

  • Each page includes tools to analyze the likelihood of costs and benefits associated with different actions or beliefs.
  • Users can post pro/con arguments for:
    • The probability of specific costs or benefits happening.
    • The validity of stakeholder interests, especially those affected by the proposed costs or benefits.
  • This feature allows for objectively analyzing potential outcomes and stakeholder impacts.

 

6. Enhanced User Interaction

  • Users can contribute by posting arguments and evidence, subject to upvotes and downvotes for community feedback.
  • However, the primary focus is always on weighing each belief's pro/con arguments and evidence.
  • Conclusions are ranked based on the performance of their pro/con sub-arguments, not on popularity or emotional appeal.
    • This approach ensures the system prioritizes objective evaluation over subjective preferences.
  • The platform’s core question is always "What evidence supports or refutes this argument?" rather than "Which side do you agree with?"

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.