4 ms·
Forums are for chronological discussion. New comments bury old comments. People talk past each other or in circles. A platform designed for rational debate puts
by brlewis 7y ago
Forums are for chronological discussion. New comments bury old comments. People talk past each other or in circles. A platform designed for rational debate puts a statement at the top and collects pro/con arguments under it. You win such a debate by curating a concise list of effective statements, not by talking longer than your opponent can.
Rational debate can happen in a discussion forum, but forums aren't really designed for it.
- P_I_Staker 7y agoIt'd be an interesting idea. I'm not sure about all of the features needed. I'd add that it'd be helpful to have a place to post sources, possibly with dedicated discussion. Both sides would have a chance to critique each others sources before the debate completes.
- ChrisKor 7y agoOn Kialo the sources in the arguments are normally discussed in pros and cons underneath the argument they are in, or in the comments of a claim, sort of a meta discussion where folks discuss how to best formulate a claim. Some of their argument trees nest 10 levels deep.
- ChrisKor 7y agoI am actually not sure I would call Kialo debates, debates, they seem to me more like argument maps, coupled with Wikipedia. Also, they aren't antagonistic and there isn't really a winner. I have gotten plenty of claims rejected because they were already in the debate. I think the most important aspect of an ideal platform is that its users are not encouraged to write outrageous statements that then garner the most likes / upvotes, as is often the case on Twitter and Reddit. At HN I am actually frequently surprised that things stay as civil as they do, though, as you write, they often go round and round and are a bit confusing for readers, which isn't HN's fault but just the nature of threaded commenting forums.