Political Corruption

Einstein said, “You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.” Similarly, we won’t improve our country until we improve our level of public debate. On these pages I outline how we can automate conflict resolution and cost-benefit analysis and solve our problems at a level higher than how they were caused.

To start, we will break our problems down into their sub-components, including beliefs, supporting, and weakening evidence, and arguments. This will allow thousands or millions of us to evaluate each part of an argument and evidence one at a time. We will group beliefs by topic and sort them by their positivity, strength, and level of specificity. This will prevent duplication and allow us to focus on one issue at a time.

The Idea Stock Exchange (ISE) proposes a groundbreaking framework for tackling complex issues, resolving conflicts, and fostering informed decision-making. Here's a detailed breakdown of its key features:

1. Collaborative Conflict Resolution Platform:

Wiki-inspired: Borrows from Wikipedia's collaborative editing model, facilitating community-driven conflict resolution.
Evidence-driven: Prioritizes verifiable data and logical reasoning, ensuring well-informed conclusions.
Dynamic Ranking System: Inspired by Google's PageRank, it evaluates arguments based on the strength of their evidence, dynamically adjusting as new information emerges.

2. Multi-faceted Evaluation Metrics:

Cost-Benefit Analysis: Assesses proposed solutions by examining potential costs, benefits, likelihoods, and impact.
Argumentative Strength Assessment: Categorizes arguments based on logical consistency, evidence, relevance, and significance.
Maslow's Hierarchy Integration: Aligns the evaluation with fundamental human needs for a broader perspective.

3. Sophisticated Scoring and Ranking Protocols:

Precision Scoring Formula: Combines argument scores with evidence assessments to determine argument validity.
Evidence-Based Ranking System: Leverages algorithms to rank solutions based on predicted costs and benefits, with dynamic updates based on new information.

4. Uniqueness and Redundancy Scores:

Equivalency Score: Identifies similar arguments using semantic similarity metrics and machine learning, coupled with community feedback, to reduce redundancy and develop unique scores.
"Better Ways of Saying the Same Thing": Helps users find alternative expressions of the same idea, enhancing clarity and reducing duplication.

5. Logical Fallacy and Argument Evaluation:

Fallacy Detection: Implements algorithms to identify and flag potentially fallacious arguments, promoting rational discourse.
User-Contributed Evidence Assessment: Allows the community to contribute evidence supporting or weakening arguments for collaborative verification.

6. Technological Integration and User Interaction:

Database Tools: Proposes building tools to map conclusions, assumptions, and their relationships for deeper understanding.
Interactive Interface: Users can actively participate by submitting evidence, voting on argument strength, and suggesting alternative viewpoints.

7. Promoting Quality Debate:

Separating Argument Types: Distinguishes between truth, importance, and relevance arguments for a more nuanced debate structure.
Encouraging Constructive Dialogue: Aims to shift focus from emotional responses to evidence-based reasoning, fostering meaningful discourse over sensationalism.

8. Community-Driven Evolution:

Open-Source Development: Encourages community involvement in refining and evolving the platform, ensuring its adaptability and relevance.

Additional Considerations:

Data Quality and Bias: Implementing robust measures to ensure data accuracy and mitigate potential biases in algorithms and user contributions.
Transparency and Explainability: Providing clear explanations of scoring methods and decision-making processes to build trust and understanding.
User Engagement and Education: Fostering active participation and educating users on the platform's functionalities and responsible use.

E-Democracy

Forward Party Platform

Other Sites

Site Map

Go to his current page to see the latest

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z

Arguments:

Thomas Jefferson said we should list pros and cons. Here is my list of reasons to agree and disagree. Please help me advance the arguments:

+34

"Competition in Educational opportunities makes traditional public schools better"

+29.

"We should ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process"

+27

Students in failing schools should be able to exercise school choice

+24

"We should weaken the threat of the Castro regime"

+21.

"We should tighten economic sanctions against Iran"

+19

The media is stupid

+17.

+14

+13.

"We should eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains."
"We should help threatened Islamic states with micro-credit and banking."
Dodd-Frank is bad
It may seem like a strange paradox, but those societies that guarantee the least for their poor, often end up giving them the least ~ Me

+12

+11.

+10.

+7.

+8.

+6.

+5.

+4.

+3.

+2.

+1.

+0.

-1

-2

-4

Americans trying to defeat radical and violent factions of Islam will only backfire

-9

People shouldn't support Mitt because he is Mormon

-21

It is good to be liberal

-3

We are a political party that organizes all the ideas and arguments by subject, and lets them battle in a survival of the fittest death-match.

We are a political party that supports candidates that promises to make their decisions based on online cost benefit and idea evaluation algorithms. They just have to use a forum that ties the strength of their conclusion to the strength of their assumption, so that when you strengthen or weaken an assumption you also strengthen or weaken conclusions based on the assumption.

We have had the technological ability to create a world based on logic for too long. It is about time we build a rational political party based on the assumption that we support plans, conclusions, activities, and policies that can gather evidence based support, and that we don't do things that don't stand up to analysis.

We will conduct open, online, cost/benefit analysis of each issue. It is about time.

Welcome to the website for the best political party of all time, and the future of reason based decisions making.

"No concept you form is valid unless you integrate it without contradiction into the sum of human knowledge."

~Michael E. Laub

Questions

Questions that don't need to be asked again of Governor Mitt Romney

ABC News' Iran Intel Leak:

Abortion:

Ahmadinejad:

America:

Asia:

Automobile Industry

Background:

Books:

Brain Washing:

Budget:

Bush:

Business:

Campaign:

Cabinet:

Character:

Conservatives:

Competition , Fred Thompson, John McCain, Rudy:

Debate:

Education:

Ehud Olmert:

Family:

Fees

Flip Flops:

Foreign Policey

Gay Rights:

Governorship:

Guns:

Healthcare:

Iraq:

Iran:

Immigration:

Internet:

Independents:

Islam:

Khatami visit to Harvard:

Law:

Massachusetts:

Media:

Miscellaneous:

Mitt and Ann Romney's Relationship:

Moderates:

Money:

Obama:

Osama:

North Korea:

Personal:

Personality:

Politics:

Presidency:

Republican Party:

Romney administration:

Security:

Sports:

Taxes:

Terrorism:

Va Tech tragedy:

Questions from the 1st Debate:

Questions from the 2nd Debate:

Questions from the 3rd Debate:

Questions from the 4rth Debate:

Questions from the 5th Debate:

"Why I Support Mitt Romney for President"

Questions

Page Tools

Insert links

Comments (0)

Join this workspace

Navigator

SideBar

Site Map

Arguments:

Recent Activity