8 ms·

Show HN: A new platform for meaningful, balanced debates

50 points by adrianmacneil 13y ago

dmlorenzetti 13y ago
The site seems to encourage questions with simple yes/no answers, and to solicit sentence- or paragraph-length blurbs from commenters. Furthermore, since comments aren't obviously linked to the opposing statements that evoked them, it's hard to get a sense of dialog (as opposed to a bunch of people stating their opinions in a void). How likely is a meaningful, balanced exchange of views to proceed from that? Indeed, I already see some signs of behavior that could lead to flame wars. One question begins, "Seatbelt fines are a joke...", which hardly seems likely to create an atmosphere of balanced, thoughtful comments. One comment on whether parents should be allowed to drug children on long flights advocates making it mandatory. Another question seems to be predicated on a news story (should a family get $200k?), but the context of the question is completely missing.
- ebyc1234 13y ago
  All good points @dmlorenzetti - bear in mind it was designed/built on zero budget in under a week so issues like you mention will take time to properly solve. The site is getting a lot of interest now so we'll hopefully have the resources to solve, or at least attempt to solve some of the more pressing conceptual issues.
md224 13y ago
Interesting experiment. Here's a thought: what if users could break down arguments into smaller "atomic" propositions (yes, this is somewhat inspired by the now defunct philosophy of Logical Atomism). For example, taken from an actual debate on Saysaw about policing cyber-bullying: "In theory, yes - but in practice, no. How on earth would we judge what an acceptable thing to say or post actually is? Do we have a mean-tweet checklist? Besides, if people aren't being mean in one place, they'll do it in another - that's the internet for you. People should just learn that their words, in whichever forum or situation they are said, have the power to upset or offend people." This person's argument seems to consist of a few assertions, themselves debatable (in the literal sense of "can be debated on Saysaw"). These include: 1) We cannot have a reliable method for determining the "acceptability" of content 2) Censoring a bully in one channel of communication will lead them to continue bullying in another These assumptions could be spun out into their own Saysaw debates, and these debates could be linked to other arguments on the site that use them as a premise. This would provide a rough way to estimate the plausibility of an argument: how much are its premises supported? This may also have the effect of helping people to drill down to the core of a disagreement. A lot of debates are unproductive because people don't seem to understand what they're actually disagreeing about. Providing an avenue for breaking an argument down into its components may make it easier to locate the actual point(s) of contention. Anyway, this is just brainstorming... not necessarily a workable system but something to think about.
- ebyc1234 13y ago
  Thanks md224, yes thats a great idea, something like you described is being planned right now. Definitely a challenge to implement well while keeping it an easy/fun/accessible interface. Typical users would get totally lost in something like stackoverflow.
- waldir 13y ago
  I actually came here to say this. This breaking-down process to turn complex arguments into a tree of simple statements that can be debated more objectively and with less controversy was the core of a similar platform that existed a few years ago, but which has since been discontinued, called Ideagraph. I collected all the remains of the website I could find some weeks ago here: http://imgur.com/a/bAmcV http://imgur.com/a/bAmcV. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a web archive version. I've been hoping the concept would surface again, and this Saysaw is quite close, but doesn't take the concept of distributed debate quite as far. EDIT: To be perfectly clear, since the blurbs in the link above make no mention of the working mechanism of the site: Ideagraph worked by allowing each statement to be voted up or down, or subdivided into its component ideas. This could happen multiple times, creating a deep tree structure, where only leaf nodes could be voted on; the score of the parent nodes would be automatically calculated from its children, all the way to the top (the high-level arguments). Also, any node could be linked to another part of the tree, which they describe as "Facts concluded in one debate by one group of people are reused in other debates." The whole thing was built on top of MediaWiki, to provide the wiki features of distributed editing, edit history, etc. (and also because the idea came from an attempt to improve Wikipedia discussions). But mediawiki obviously that wasn't the ideal platform to build such a system, and I believe it's one of the reasons the project was eventually discontinued.
- prawn 13y ago
  I have thought about this before and came to the same conclusion. If you want a serious debate site, then you have to dig deeper to resolve the finer points that make up a broader issue.
- ilyanep 13y ago
  This is an awesome idea! I like thinking of arguments/debates as almost like a logical/mathematical argument (thanks to a lot of people, but most recently Day9 of Starcraft community fame) and this would make that explicit and therefore quite cool, in my opinion.
itafroma 13y ago
When I look at the page now, I see a number of leading, loaded talking points that—to me—are anything but balanced: - The Winter Olympics is inherently elitist - seatbelt fines are a joke - people should be responsible for their own safety - Is it fair that a family should be given $200000 because their situation made for a good news story? - Its ok for parents to drug their children on long flights It's understandable that a site full of user-generated content is going to have some content that's detrimental or counter to the site's goals (in this case, fostering opinions that are "aware and respectful of the other side"[1]), but I would consider curating the front page so that stuff doesn't appear front and center to color a first impression. [1]: https://www.saysaw.org/about https://www.saysaw.org/about
- ebyc1234 13y ago
  Definitely a good point itafroma. The idea is that people can post their own opinions that can be agreed or disagreed with, but you're right the homepage should be curated. I certainly don't agree with a lot of what's on there, but a good topic is one which gains interest and provokes a useful discussion.
ericbieller 13y ago
wow, I really like this idea. Going to dig a bit deeper into it.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bgnm2000 13y ago
Cool idea! Only critique is the lack of contrast makes it difficult to read
- jggonz 13y ago
  I also have difficulty reading this site.
Rygu 13y ago
Reminds me of this: http://web.archive.org/web/20071219073644/http://jyte.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20071219073644/http://jyte.com/ Back in the day when OpenID was still the future.
- dictum 13y ago
  So delightfully Web 2.0. To see how the average aesthetic of the web has changed, compare jyte, http://web.archive.org/web/20070622000055/http://janrain.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20070622000055/http://janrain.com... and http://web.archive.org/web/20070620031338/https://pibb.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20070620031338/https://pibb.com/ to http://janrain.com http://janrain.com
ebyc1234 13y ago
Thanks bgnm, will increase the contrast. I built it in a week by myself so theres still a lot to do!
mbesto 13y ago
Ah another Opinion Network™[0][1] Serious criticism - what's the goal of these sites? What problems are they solving? Debates and opinions are, in my opinion, eternal. (high user engagement ya!) My understanding is that these sites want to collectively either catalog the debate (so the debate becomes eternally dynamic) or end the debate (so the debate becomes static). However there is one flaw - without full context (or lack of missing context), trying to catalog subjectivity is near impossible. To contrast this with StackOverflow for example, the context is less important. If someone says "ActiveRecord errors out for undefined local variable" and someone gives an answer, I can effectively take the same logic and apply to my own context. This is not the same for every subject in the world. Also, what Spolsky has correctly identified is that trying to be THE q&a for everything is a poor design decision, because the name (and thus environment of the community) adds to the context of the questioning. (try asking "What should my salary be" in StackOverflow and you'll be sent right to Programmers SE site). Whenever I see these sites, my gut reaction will always be "wishful thinking". Good luck though! [0]https://www.quora.com/ https://www.quora.com/ [1]https://state.com/ https://state.com/
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  I agree with you that figuring out how to structure debates in an automated fashion is a Hard Problem, but that's not the only way a debate site can add value. Finding primary sources and extracting relevant information from them is such a difficult process that disturbingly few people do it, even though it really ought to be central to a good debate. Reducing friction in the resource-finding process, curating already-discovered relevant resources (one sentence summaries + search), figuring out a way to reward evidence-based arguments, and punishing fabrications would all be huge value-adds. The real trick, of course, is figuring out how to keep people at the lower end of the spectrum engaged. I recently had the pleasant surprise of stumbling across procon.org, which appears to address some of those value-add categories (it looks curated, so there's still space for somebody to automate the process, thereby extending it to small or recent issues). I was investigating healthcare reform, so I landed here: http://healthcarereform.procon.org http://healthcarereform.procon.org Pay particular attention to to "Projects" sidebar on the left. It's a goldmine of relevant quantitative information and the arguments surrounding their interpretation. This is what arguments should look like. Anyone who can figure out how to structure a forum system to organically generate something akin to the "Projects" sidebar might have a shot at making themselves a "citation hub" and becoming the Wikipedia of arguments. The world doesn't need another opinion network, but it does need another way to argue, and such a site might arise out of an especially clever opinion network.
ngpio 13y ago
I see the main barrier to developing a "platform for meaningful, balanced debates" as one of semantic clarity, not discourse-level organization. I cannot truthfully answer most of the questions I see on the site, because they have variable answers depending on what amount of game theory I apply to my thought processes: * 1-step strategy: I answer by interpreting the words and phrases in the question exactly how I, personally, define them, with no regard to how widespread an interpretation like mine is. * 2-step strategy: I attempt to discern the majoritarian interpretation of the question and answer accordingly. * 3-or-more-step strategy: I attempt to mix my own interpretations with majoritarian ones to answer in a way that will maximize the propagation of my actual view and all its nuances. The third option, in this case, is leading me to eschew voting and commenting on the platform altogether.[1] Though I am glad that it's led me to organize my thoughts on this matter. What I'd really like to see in a discussion platform is more tightly networked semantics. Something more powerful than straight hyperlinking. Something that automates the conversion of broadcast and multicast text blocks (like forum posts) into tailored unicast ones (like private messages). Something that gives each user the background and definition set they need to interpret the content accurately. An API for people -- a PPI? I really don't know how to make this happen. Arguably it's the sociological question of the century, the P vs. NP of human interaction. Maybe even the best first step is a platform like Saysaw. It's hard to say. But right now, I feel like there hasn't been any real progress since email or phpBB. [1] This is also what made me stop using OkCupid. If anyone wants to take these thoughts on discussion platforms and apply them to a new dating platform, that'd be fantastic.
- adrianmacneil 13y ago
  It's a good point, that different interpretations of the same sentence can lead to pointless debate. Unfortunately, I guess the main way to improve semantic clarity around an argument would be with more information up front, which would simultaneously raise the barrier to entry. Right now Saysaw aims to boil complex issues down into something which can quickly and easily provide a general overview of public opinion. Perhaps the answer is to allow 'splitting' an debate when it becomes clear that more than one issue is really being discussed. That would mean you could retain the simplicity and low barrier to entry, while avoiding situations where discussions get off topic.
ebyc1234 13y ago
Appreciate the feedback guys - i should be clear though that the site was designed & built by one developer (me) in one week with a total spend of around $90 on the ssl cert. more of an experiment initially but is evolving into potentially a new concept. Not necessarily trying to create the perfect architecture/semantics for a debate, more aiming to make it fun & constructive - a place where people can quickly see the best ofboth sides of a topic/argument. But as i say its still evolving
- fakeanon 13y ago
  Nice job making the site!
jedanbik 13y ago
Why must I share my gender to have an opinion?
- prawn 13y ago
  Likely later provides interesting data. Not the OP and only guessing, but I made a similar site 10+ years ago and initially incorporated questions about gender and age so I could show how opinions varied by age group, etc. I ended up winding that back and the site became simpler but far less interesting as a result.
  - jedanbik 13y ago
    I guess a good compromise would be to make that decision optional and up to the user.
PaulHoule 13y ago
I have friends who disagree (they come out of Palestine/Isreal) but I think most people are really about the Yankees vs. the Red Sox and putting things head to head leads to real user engagement.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
somid3 13y ago
Hey adrianmacneil or ebyc1234 could you email me when you get a chance? somid3@gmail.com
Vervious 13y ago
I like it! The quality of the content would come, of course, from the ability of users to debate well. Constructing a well-formed argument is very much a learned skill. My only criticism concerns the color scheme - it might be my monitor calibration, but there's just not enough contrast on the screen for me to easily follow the text. Everything's too light.
brandonbloom 13y ago
Quick feedback: I didn't immediately interpret the little diagrams as being a balance scale. Without reading the numbers, I was equating higher with better, rather than lower with heavier from the weight of votes.
zoec1234 13y ago
It's an interesting concept. Reading some of the comments here, I think there's a fine line to tread between creating something which is too formal, structured and academic, and something which is too gimmicky and meaningless, and actually de-values people's opinions. There must be a middle ground here though - or are they mutually exclusive? There is a fundamental difference in an opinion and an argument, and I wonder if some of the formal aspects (i.e structure) of an argument could be utilised to make this a place for intelligent discussion, discouraging opinions which are just opinions. The ability to research and reference related content could be crucial here. On another note, would be interesting to be able to see the stats related to opinions/arguments easily - the data could provide some really interesting info, if enough users got on board.
fakeanon 13y ago
Interesting idea, but it looks like it turns into just a vote, which doesn't work. A problem: even in the small positions, what if you agree with one part and not the other? Just in: >[1]Seatbelt fines are a joke - [2]people should be responsible for their own safety I see multiple parts. Implicit is three: seat belts only affect your own safety. Maybe there could be a system where you can separate sub parts and debate them. Edit: Sorry, I see md224 said something similar already.
therealunreal 13y ago
Here's another one, pretty well done: http://www.naqeshny.com/?locale=en http://www.naqeshny.com/?locale=en
whiddershins 13y ago
I really don't understand why, if I sign in with Facebook, you need to access my friends list. So I tried to sign up without Facebook, and I don't understand why you requested I choose one of two genders, or that I need to choose any gender at all. Maybe those things are important for participation in a fair and balanced debate, but it was enough to discourage me from signing up at this time.
- ebyc1234 13y ago
  Sorry about this, we actually don't use your friends list at all, it's just part of the default Facebook permissions. Facebook connect is purely used to simplify signup/login and the site is never going to automatically post on your wall or contact your friends. There is actually a discussion re. gender fields here - https://www.saysaw.org/topics/48-web-services-should-not-ask-for-a-gender-limited-to-male-and-female https://www.saysaw.org/topics/48-web-services-should-not-ask... you may want to add to
tunesmith 13y ago
I have seen a few examples of this sort of thing in the past. I think the term they tend to center around is "Argument Mapping" which is a technique that has a loosely-defined set of best practices. Judgments or Lemmas, counterpoints and rebuttals. I also think they tend to be limited because while they display the structure of counterpoints, there isn't any attempt to actually be logical through boolean or causal logic - necessary and sufficient thinking. Here is a youtube video showing an example of justifying a conclusion with actual causal logic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD9R89tCIM0#t=197 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD9R89tCIM0#t=197 The conclusion is trivial (whether I should buy a MBP 15") but the structure is similar to what is discussed downthread here - logical atomism, conclusions being premises for further conclusions, counterpoints, etc. I've been working on my own time on making a web-based tool that has somewhat related features, but it takes time since it requires tracking actual truth states of contentions. If any off-HN discussion has started up from this thread, I'd like to participate.

50 points by adrianmacneil 13y ago

The site seems to encourage questions with simple yes/no answers, and to solicit sentence- or paragraph-length blurbs from commenters. Furthermore, since comments aren't obviously linked to the opposing statements that evoked them, it's hard to get a sense of dialog (as opposed to a bunch of people stating their opinions in a void). How likely is a meaningful, balanced exchange of views to proceed from that? Indeed, I already see some signs of behavior that could lead to flame wars. One question begins, "Seatbelt fines are a joke...", which hardly seems likely to create an atmosphere of balanced, thoughtful comments. One comment on whether parents should be allowed to drug children on long flights advocates making it mandatory. Another question seems to be predicated on a news story (should a family get $200k?), but the context of the question is completely missing.

ebyc1234 13y ago
All good points @dmlorenzetti - bear in mind it was designed/built on zero budget in under a week so issues like you mention will take time to properly solve. The site is getting a lot of interest now so we'll hopefully have the resources to solve, or at least attempt to solve some of the more pressing conceptual issues.

md224 13y ago

Interesting experiment. Here's a thought: what if users could break down arguments into smaller "atomic" propositions (yes, this is somewhat inspired by the now defunct philosophy of Logical Atomism). For example, taken from an actual debate on Saysaw about policing cyber-bullying: "In theory, yes - but in practice, no. How on earth would we judge what an acceptable thing to say or post actually is? Do we have a mean-tweet checklist? Besides, if people aren't being mean in one place, they'll do it in another - that's the internet for you. People should just learn that their words, in whichever forum or situation they are said, have the power to upset or offend people." This person's argument seems to consist of a few assertions, themselves debatable (in the literal sense of "can be debated on Saysaw"). These include: 1) We cannot have a reliable method for determining the "acceptability" of content 2) Censoring a bully in one channel of communication will lead them to continue bullying in another These assumptions could be spun out into their own Saysaw debates, and these debates could be linked to other arguments on the site that use them as a premise. This would provide a rough way to estimate the plausibility of an argument: how much are its premises supported? This may also have the effect of helping people to drill down to the core of a disagreement. A lot of debates are unproductive because people don't seem to understand what they're actually disagreeing about. Providing an avenue for breaking an argument down into its components may make it easier to locate the actual point(s) of contention. Anyway, this is just brainstorming... not necessarily a workable system but something to think about.

ebyc1234 13y ago
Thanks md224, yes thats a great idea, something like you described is being planned right now. Definitely a challenge to implement well while keeping it an easy/fun/accessible interface. Typical users would get totally lost in something like stackoverflow.
waldir 13y ago
I actually came here to say this. This breaking-down process to turn complex arguments into a tree of simple statements that can be debated more objectively and with less controversy was the core of a similar platform that existed a few years ago, but which has since been discontinued, called Ideagraph. I collected all the remains of the website I could find some weeks ago here: http://imgur.com/a/bAmcV http://imgur.com/a/bAmcV. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a web archive version. I've been hoping the concept would surface again, and this Saysaw is quite close, but doesn't take the concept of distributed debate quite as far. EDIT: To be perfectly clear, since the blurbs in the link above make no mention of the working mechanism of the site: Ideagraph worked by allowing each statement to be voted up or down, or subdivided into its component ideas. This could happen multiple times, creating a deep tree structure, where only leaf nodes could be voted on; the score of the parent nodes would be automatically calculated from its children, all the way to the top (the high-level arguments). Also, any node could be linked to another part of the tree, which they describe as "Facts concluded in one debate by one group of people are reused in other debates." The whole thing was built on top of MediaWiki, to provide the wiki features of distributed editing, edit history, etc. (and also because the idea came from an attempt to improve Wikipedia discussions). But mediawiki obviously that wasn't the ideal platform to build such a system, and I believe it's one of the reasons the project was eventually discontinued.
prawn 13y ago
I have thought about this before and came to the same conclusion. If you want a serious debate site, then you have to dig deeper to resolve the finer points that make up a broader issue.
ilyanep 13y ago
This is an awesome idea! I like thinking of arguments/debates as almost like a logical/mathematical argument (thanks to a lot of people, but most recently Day9 of Starcraft community fame) and this would make that explicit and therefore quite cool, in my opinion.

itafroma 13y ago

When I look at the page now, I see a number of leading, loaded talking points that—to me—are anything but balanced: - The Winter Olympics is inherently elitist - seatbelt fines are a joke - people should be responsible for their own safety - Is it fair that a family should be given $200000 because their situation made for a good news story? - Its ok for parents to drug their children on long flights It's understandable that a site full of user-generated content is going to have some content that's detrimental or counter to the site's goals (in this case, fostering opinions that are "aware and respectful of the other side"[1]), but I would consider curating the front page so that stuff doesn't appear front and center to color a first impression. [1]: https://www.saysaw.org/about https://www.saysaw.org/about

ebyc1234 13y ago
Definitely a good point itafroma. The idea is that people can post their own opinions that can be agreed or disagreed with, but you're right the homepage should be curated. I certainly don't agree with a lot of what's on there, but a good topic is one which gains interest and provokes a useful discussion.

ericbieller 13y ago

wow, I really like this idea. Going to dig a bit deeper into it.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

bgnm2000 13y ago

Cool idea! Only critique is the lack of contrast makes it difficult to read

jggonz 13y ago
I also have difficulty reading this site.

Rygu 13y ago

Reminds me of this: http://web.archive.org/web/20071219073644/http://jyte.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20071219073644/http://jyte.com/ Back in the day when OpenID was still the future.

dictum 13y ago
So delightfully Web 2.0. To see how the average aesthetic of the web has changed, compare jyte, http://web.archive.org/web/20070622000055/http://janrain.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20070622000055/http://janrain.com... and http://web.archive.org/web/20070620031338/https://pibb.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20070620031338/https://pibb.com/ to http://janrain.com http://janrain.com

ebyc1234 13y ago

Thanks bgnm, will increase the contrast. I built it in a week by myself so theres still a lot to do!

mbesto 13y ago

Ah another Opinion Network™[0][1] Serious criticism - what's the goal of these sites? What problems are they solving? Debates and opinions are, in my opinion, eternal. (high user engagement ya!) My understanding is that these sites want to collectively either catalog the debate (so the debate becomes eternally dynamic) or end the debate (so the debate becomes static). However there is one flaw - without full context (or lack of missing context), trying to catalog subjectivity is near impossible. To contrast this with StackOverflow for example, the context is less important. If someone says "ActiveRecord errors out for undefined local variable" and someone gives an answer, I can effectively take the same logic and apply to my own context. This is not the same for every subject in the world. Also, what Spolsky has correctly identified is that trying to be THE q&a for everything is a poor design decision, because the name (and thus environment of the community) adds to the context of the questioning. (try asking "What should my salary be" in StackOverflow and you'll be sent right to Programmers SE site). Whenever I see these sites, my gut reaction will always be "wishful thinking". Good luck though! [0]https://www.quora.com/ https://www.quora.com/ [1]https://state.com/ https://state.com/

jjoonathan 13y ago
I agree with you that figuring out how to structure debates in an automated fashion is a Hard Problem, but that's not the only way a debate site can add value. Finding primary sources and extracting relevant information from them is such a difficult process that disturbingly few people do it, even though it really ought to be central to a good debate. Reducing friction in the resource-finding process, curating already-discovered relevant resources (one sentence summaries + search), figuring out a way to reward evidence-based arguments, and punishing fabrications would all be huge value-adds. The real trick, of course, is figuring out how to keep people at the lower end of the spectrum engaged. I recently had the pleasant surprise of stumbling across procon.org, which appears to address some of those value-add categories (it looks curated, so there's still space for somebody to automate the process, thereby extending it to small or recent issues). I was investigating healthcare reform, so I landed here: http://healthcarereform.procon.org http://healthcarereform.procon.org Pay particular attention to to "Projects" sidebar on the left. It's a goldmine of relevant quantitative information and the arguments surrounding their interpretation. This is what arguments should look like. Anyone who can figure out how to structure a forum system to organically generate something akin to the "Projects" sidebar might have a shot at making themselves a "citation hub" and becoming the Wikipedia of arguments. The world doesn't need another opinion network, but it does need another way to argue, and such a site might arise out of an especially clever opinion network.

ngpio 13y ago

I see the main barrier to developing a "platform for meaningful, balanced debates" as one of semantic clarity, not discourse-level organization. I cannot truthfully answer most of the questions I see on the site, because they have variable answers depending on what amount of game theory I apply to my thought processes: * 1-step strategy: I answer by interpreting the words and phrases in the question exactly how I, personally, define them, with no regard to how widespread an interpretation like mine is. * 2-step strategy: I attempt to discern the majoritarian interpretation of the question and answer accordingly. * 3-or-more-step strategy: I attempt to mix my own interpretations with majoritarian ones to answer in a way that will maximize the propagation of my actual view and all its nuances. The third option, in this case, is leading me to eschew voting and commenting on the platform altogether.[1] Though I am glad that it's led me to organize my thoughts on this matter. What I'd really like to see in a discussion platform is more tightly networked semantics. Something more powerful than straight hyperlinking. Something that automates the conversion of broadcast and multicast text blocks (like forum posts) into tailored unicast ones (like private messages). Something that gives each user the background and definition set they need to interpret the content accurately. An API for people -- a PPI? I really don't know how to make this happen. Arguably it's the sociological question of the century, the P vs. NP of human interaction. Maybe even the best first step is a platform like Saysaw. It's hard to say. But right now, I feel like there hasn't been any real progress since email or phpBB. [1] This is also what made me stop using OkCupid. If anyone wants to take these thoughts on discussion platforms and apply them to a new dating platform, that'd be fantastic.

adrianmacneil 13y ago
It's a good point, that different interpretations of the same sentence can lead to pointless debate. Unfortunately, I guess the main way to improve semantic clarity around an argument would be with more information up front, which would simultaneously raise the barrier to entry. Right now Saysaw aims to boil complex issues down into something which can quickly and easily provide a general overview of public opinion. Perhaps the answer is to allow 'splitting' an debate when it becomes clear that more than one issue is really being discussed. That would mean you could retain the simplicity and low barrier to entry, while avoiding situations where discussions get off topic.

ebyc1234 13y ago

Appreciate the feedback guys - i should be clear though that the site was designed & built by one developer (me) in one week with a total spend of around $90 on the ssl cert. more of an experiment initially but is evolving into potentially a new concept. Not necessarily trying to create the perfect architecture/semantics for a debate, more aiming to make it fun & constructive - a place where people can quickly see the best ofboth sides of a topic/argument. But as i say its still evolving

fakeanon 13y ago
Nice job making the site!

jedanbik 13y ago

Why must I share my gender to have an opinion?

prawn 13y ago
Likely later provides interesting data. Not the OP and only guessing, but I made a similar site 10+ years ago and initially incorporated questions about gender and age so I could show how opinions varied by age group, etc. I ended up winding that back and the site became simpler but far less interesting as a result.
- jedanbik 13y ago
  I guess a good compromise would be to make that decision optional and up to the user.

PaulHoule 13y ago

I have friends who disagree (they come out of Palestine/Isreal) but I think most people are really about the Yankees vs. the Red Sox and putting things head to head leads to real user engagement.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

somid3 13y ago

Hey adrianmacneil or ebyc1234 could you email me when you get a chance? somid3@gmail.com

Vervious 13y ago

I like it! The quality of the content would come, of course, from the ability of users to debate well. Constructing a well-formed argument is very much a learned skill. My only criticism concerns the color scheme - it might be my monitor calibration, but there's just not enough contrast on the screen for me to easily follow the text. Everything's too light.

brandonbloom 13y ago

Quick feedback: I didn't immediately interpret the little diagrams as being a balance scale. Without reading the numbers, I was equating higher with better, rather than lower with heavier from the weight of votes.

zoec1234 13y ago

It's an interesting concept. Reading some of the comments here, I think there's a fine line to tread between creating something which is too formal, structured and academic, and something which is too gimmicky and meaningless, and actually de-values people's opinions. There must be a middle ground here though - or are they mutually exclusive? There is a fundamental difference in an opinion and an argument, and I wonder if some of the formal aspects (i.e structure) of an argument could be utilised to make this a place for intelligent discussion, discouraging opinions which are just opinions. The ability to research and reference related content could be crucial here. On another note, would be interesting to be able to see the stats related to opinions/arguments easily - the data could provide some really interesting info, if enough users got on board.

fakeanon 13y ago

Interesting idea, but it looks like it turns into just a vote, which doesn't work. A problem: even in the small positions, what if you agree with one part and not the other? Just in: >[1]Seatbelt fines are a joke - [2]people should be responsible for their own safety I see multiple parts. Implicit is three: seat belts only affect your own safety. Maybe there could be a system where you can separate sub parts and debate them. Edit: Sorry, I see md224 said something similar already.

therealunreal 13y ago

Here's another one, pretty well done: http://www.naqeshny.com/?locale=en http://www.naqeshny.com/?locale=en

whiddershins 13y ago

I really don't understand why, if I sign in with Facebook, you need to access my friends list. So I tried to sign up without Facebook, and I don't understand why you requested I choose one of two genders, or that I need to choose any gender at all. Maybe those things are important for participation in a fair and balanced debate, but it was enough to discourage me from signing up at this time.

ebyc1234 13y ago
Sorry about this, we actually don't use your friends list at all, it's just part of the default Facebook permissions. Facebook connect is purely used to simplify signup/login and the site is never going to automatically post on your wall or contact your friends. There is actually a discussion re. gender fields here - https://www.saysaw.org/topics/48-web-services-should-not-ask-for-a-gender-limited-to-male-and-female https://www.saysaw.org/topics/48-web-services-should-not-ask... you may want to add to

tunesmith 13y ago

I have seen a few examples of this sort of thing in the past. I think the term they tend to center around is "Argument Mapping" which is a technique that has a loosely-defined set of best practices. Judgments or Lemmas, counterpoints and rebuttals. I also think they tend to be limited because while they display the structure of counterpoints, there isn't any attempt to actually be logical through boolean or causal logic - necessary and sufficient thinking. Here is a youtube video showing an example of justifying a conclusion with actual causal logic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD9R89tCIM0#t=197 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD9R89tCIM0#t=197 The conclusion is trivial (whether I should buy a MBP 15") but the structure is similar to what is discussed downthread here - logical atomism, conclusions being premises for further conclusions, counterpoints, etc. I've been working on my own time on making a web-based tool that has somewhat related features, but it takes time since it requires tracking actual truth states of contentions. If any off-HN discussion has started up from this thread, I'd like to participate.