> The premise of this system is invalid: it relies on people being rational and logical when debating issues that they are passionate about - people are neither

> The premise of this system is invalid: it relies on people being rational and logical when debating issues that they are passionate about - people are neither rational nor logical in these situations. You're right that we can't rely on logic in debate. But I would contend that the premise of the system is that structure will be salubrious for debate. There's nothing about the system that would prevent me from developing a totally irrational series of arguments on it and, crucially, the system itself doesn't reason about things. Instead, it keeps track of my reactions to claims and evidence, reactions that will differ from yours. This pluralism is a great strength, and the one he identifies out of Github. The reddit-style populism you identify is a possible problem with the system. The question is how _could_ this work in practice? I think there are users who would be motivated to structure arguments this way but I cant think of who they might be.