"Diffing" on logic trees?? You are thinking of a very specific scenario of debate where knowledge is merely a set of observable/observed facts and everything i

"Diffing" on logic trees?? You are thinking of a very specific scenario of debate where knowledge is merely a set of observable/observed facts and everything in the discussion is fully described, strictly bounded and available for scrutiny. In such a "sandbox" of logical positivism, sure, one can see a debate as an unfolding of consequences from logical primitives. That's very far from what most actual real-world debates are like. There's typically a profound lack of facts, knowledge and experience. Deciding something like "how to proceed" with a business decision involves dabbling in a lot of uncertainty, subjectivity and emotional baggage from both sides. Subjectivity is often a dirty word amongst software developers but, outside of stackoverflow.com, it's fundamental to human experience and argument.