We need platforms for constructive arguments, ones where we can clearly state our assumptions and derive our conclusions. When outrage takes place, it would be

We need platforms for constructive arguments, ones where we can clearly state our assumptions and derive our conclusions. When outrage takes place, it would be up to those willing to invest their time on such platforms to establish various conclusions from the various disjoint assumptions found in the public discourse. Once that is done, people can link to these pages. There are a lot of issues with such an idea, I'm very aware, but it's what we need. We need more logically rigorous and data driven discourse that is accessible through platforms which are more friendly to modern tastes, not long treatise. I'd like such platforms to include interactive models, like Bayesian networks (https://www.bayesialab.com/ https://www.bayesialab.com/ has many good examples of how captivating these models can be if given the right UI treatment), so that users can interact with the model by changing various parameters in order to observe the resulting propagation of what a change in the belief of one factor has on other components of the issue. Interactivity may make such a platform more engaging and successful, because it would allow users to "engage" with the structure of the argument rather than being a passive consumer and perhaps explore why one side of the argument emerges when different beliefs are held. What platforms for constructive discourse already exist? Would accessible clarity quell outrage?