Okay so this is a repeat of a point others are making but this is just not a good intro. The passage is way too long and unstructured. There's no visualizatio

Okay so this is a repeat of a point others are making but this is just not a good intro. The passage is way too long and unstructured. There's no visualization. The design makes it hard to read. When I sign up you want to debate with me what password I use - look you're new, you're getting my throwaway email address, you're getting what password I give you or you've lost my attention. But mostly - you are a site that wants to tell people - quite boldly - that you're the right way to get ideas across and facilitate debate. However this introduction is a terrible way to get an idea across - the idea being: "We have a solution for debating points in a simple fashion. That solution follows XYZ format. Why not try it and let us explain it to you as you go?" So to the actual approach insofar as I can glean it for as much of your post as I digested - I am not convinced trying to boil everything down to true/false is that useful an approach to debating complex issues. The level of granularity you have to get to in order to break things down to a series of binary choices is just too small, leaving the big picture disconnected from the minutiae. I was and am optimistic hearing about that European country and Github recently - first thing I thought of was something to make that process go better. I am your target audience for this. I want something like this to succeed. Genuinely. We desperately need to open up new channels for debate in democratic countries where we're currently suffering some kind of fatigue that's making everything seem out of control (and in many ways it is because our ability to debate is broken). So, good luck with this, but at least take a fresh look at your opening pitch. It's kinda weak.