Home > Page Design > Topic Template

Topic: [Topic Name]

Definition: [Neutral, objective definition of the topic].
Scope: [What is included in this topic vs. what belongs in related topics].

The Problem: Why This Topic Generates More Heat Than Light

Online discussions about this topic fail in four predictable ways:

1. Topic Drift: Conversations wander off subject, losing focus and momentum.
2. Scattered Arguments: Brilliant insights vanish into endless, unsearchable comment threads.
3. Repetition Without Progress: The same points get relitigated every election cycle as if nobody has thought about them before.
4. No Collective Memory: There is no record of what has been proven, disproven, or refined over time.

This page is the fix. Every argument lives here permanently, scored by evidence quality, linked to the claims it supports or undermines, and updated automatically when new data arrives. The rebuttal to any bad argument is always one link away.

Spectrum 1: The Debate Landscape (Negative ↔ Positive)

Maps the overall direction of a belief toward the topic, from total opposition (-100%) to total support (+100%). This spectrum captures direction only. How extreme the phrasing of the claim is, and how many principles someone is willing to violate to advance it, are separate dimensions measured in Spectrums 2 and 3. By plotting a percentage on each of the three spectrums, we can accurately match and organize beliefs that are saying the same thing.

See: Full Positivity Framework | Why We Need This Spectrum

Spectrum 2: Claim Magnitude (Weak ↔ Strong)

This spectrum captures how extreme or absolute the phrasing of a claim is — independent of whether it is true. Saying a politician is "not very smart" is a weak claim. Saying they are a "drooling moron" is a strong claim. Both are negative (Spectrum 1), but they assert very different things and belong on different rows. The Belief Score — calculated dynamically from linked pro and con sub-arguments — separately indicates how well-supported any given claim actually is. Spectrum 2 just identifies the structural magnitude of the assertion so that equivalent claims can be matched and grouped correctly.

See: Why We Need This Spectrum

Spectrum 3: Escalation (Preference ↔ Any Means Necessary)

This captures the other meaning of "strength of belief" — not how extreme the claim is (Spectrum 2), but how many other principles someone is willing to violate in order to advance this belief. A person can sit at +100% on Spectrum 1, hold an extreme claim on Spectrum 2, and still refuse to break the law — because they place legal precedent or civic norms above this particular cause. Thomas More held the most absolute possible conviction that Henry VIII was wrong, yet chose legal silence and accepted execution rather than act outside legitimate process. Martin Luther King held equally total conviction and concluded that openly violating unjust laws — while accepting the consequences — was itself the principled act. Both are coherent positions on this spectrum.

Willingness to escalate says nothing about whether the underlying belief is correct. Someone at Level 6 has not strengthened their claim — they have simply decided that no other principle outranks it.

See: Escalation Spectrum Full Explanation | Core Values Framework

Foundational Assumptions: What You Must Believe at Each Position

Your position on Spectrum 1 depends on deeper assumptions about reality, values, and causation. This section maps those dependencies from most general (worldview) to most specific (this topic).

Key Insight: [State the core assumption that divides the two sides. E.g., "Most disagreements about X are really disagreements about Y."]

Spectrum 4: The Abstraction Ladder (General ↔ Specific)

Shows how general worldviews cascade down into specific positions on this topic. The same upstream belief — "government intervention causes more problems than it solves" — can generate dozens of downstream policy positions. Tracing that chain makes explicit what is actually being argued about.

See: General to Specific Framework

Core Values Conflict

Most policy disagreements are not really about facts. They are about which values take priority when values conflict. This table makes those underlying priorities explicit on both sides — including the gap between advertised values and the motivations critics attribute.

Common Ground and Compromise

Identifying shared values and goals is the first step toward solutions that don't require one side to completely capitulate. Compromise positions that address both sides' core concerns are more durable than victories.

The Evidence Ledger

Weighing the raw data. Quality scores based on methodology, sample size, and reproducibility. Ten sources corroborating the same finding strengthen a single node's Truth Score — they do not create ten separate arguments. Corroboration is rewarded. Repetition is not. See Duplication Scores.

See: Evidence Scoring Methodology

Best Media and Resources

Curated resources sorted by positivity score and informational value. The three spectrum scores apply to media as well as arguments: where does this source sit on direction, magnitude, and escalation?

See: Media Framework

Related Topics

Contribute

Contact me to add beliefs, strengthen arguments, or link new evidence.
GitHub for technical implementation and scoring algorithms.

Solutions to Duplication: One Page Per Belief, One Page Per Topic, Duplication Scores, Independence Scores, Grouping similar ways of saying the same thing, Grouping Beliefs by Topic and Sub-Topic