Wikidialectics

The current system is this:

Every debate has its own page, and the title of the page is the issue being debated written as a yes/no question. For example, Should suicide be legal? or Does God exist? The software calculates the current answer to the question based on the following algorithm:

- YES: At least one sustained argument for, and no sustained arguments against.
- NO: At least one sustained argument against, and no sustained arguments for.
- MAYBE: Neither YES nor NO.

By editing a page, it's possible to add arguments for and against, and objections to the arguments and to other objections. The software marks each argument and objection as SUSTAINED or REFUTED based on the following rules:

- SUSTAINED: No sustained objections.
- REFUTED: At least one sustained objection.

As new arguments and new objections start with no sustained objections (indeed, with no objections at all), they start out as sustained. This allows the software to calculate the status of every other argument and objection in the debate, and ultimately the current conclusion of the debate.

This is a bit like http://www.riyarchy.com/, but more flexible and with the whole "calculate the conclusion" feature.

>>7672995
So it doesn't evaluate the quality of the arguments, only whether or not there is an argument? Are many weak arguments favored over a single strong argument? Is personal experience weighted as heavily as statistically significant data? Lastly, can someone object to an objection? If so, would it start a new debate?

>>7673015
what is a strong or weak argument?
Why would there be different strengths?

>>7673020
u srs?

>>7673020
I already gave one example. Personal experience is a weak argument. A large sample size in which only one variable is tested, without a conflict of interest is a stronger argument. Another example of a weak argument is the slippery slope. Similarly, interpolating a trend based on a given pattern is not accurate. The slippery slope argument is the worst form of interpolation because it usually based on little evidence, and it predicts a trend with several subsequent points of divergence. Any one of which can cause the trend to change drastically.

As another example, what if someone counter argument was to change the subject? In short, would the program determine if an argument is a logical fallacy? For example, red herring, slippery slope, moving the goal post etc...

>>7672995
It seems that the best way to play this game would be to reply to every argument of the opposing side with a minimally acceptable argument. This way, the arguments of the opposing view arguments will be marked as REFUTED. The opponent is forced to reply to your replies in order not to lose. This will keep going until one side gives up.

Thus, every argument will be won by attrition, with the most determined side winning.

File: 1444792712029.gif (14KB, 426x290px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 426x290px

>Was 9/11 an inside job?
>Current conclusion: YES

>>7673048
It's easier to reply to stupid objections than to formulate them. You can even remove them without replying, if they are really stupid (aka vandalism).

Also the guidelines say that there should be no "sides". Arguments are not signed, everyone can contribute to either side. The objective is to attain truth, not to be right.

>>7673036
The software does not detect fallacies, users must. If the project develops though, it's expectable that we will create templates for standard objections to fallacies. For example see http://wikidialectics.org/Template:False_premise

>>7673075
>The software does not detect fallacies, users must

That's a shitty software then. It's not like you need NLP to detect logical fallacies, is it?

>>7673015
Yes, it only evaluates wether or not there is an argument.

Regarding the favouring of many weak arguments over a single strong one, if the many arguments are weak, then it should be easy to object to them, and if the single argument is strong, then it should be difficult to object to it. Therefore, the algorithm DOES favor a single strong argument over many weak ones.

>>7673076
You would need advanced software of the highest order in order to detect some fallacies accurately. Do you have any idea how variable, obscure and complex natural language can be? Not even Google could do it, seriously. How would you even begin? If the argument includes the word "asshole", then mark it as ad hominem? Same with all the other possible insults, even those that are OC ? And of course one should detect the context under which the insults appear! It's not the same to say "you're an asshole" than "I have cancer in my asshole". The idea to auto-detect fallacies is way beyond current programming capabilities.

>>7673065
One of the objections was broken, I've fixed it now.
And yes, 9/11 was probably an inside job.

>>7673048
True, but if an argument is good, then there won't always be a "minimally acceptable argument" against it. The point is that the debate reaches that point in which all minimally acceptable arguments have been stated as clearly as possible, and then see the conclusion.

File: Screen Shot 2015-11-21 at 11.22.19 AM.png (117KB, 1333x700px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1333x700px

This shit is comedy gold.

File: Faggot.jpg (35KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 800x600px

>>7673096
Sup

>>7673120
ahhahahahah brilliant

>>7673135
oh noes !

>>7673078
Wouldn't a weak argument have less to object to? A strong argument can be criticized with dozens of logical fallacies. A strong argument has more to respond to. Therefore, a strong argument can have a greater quantity of counterarguments.

File: Luis with his family ;^).jpg (77KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 960x540px

>>7673144
Good to see you're not a basement dweller

I'm tring to edit a page, and I've written this markup:

:{Objection|NO}
:{Objection|NO}
:{Objection|NO}
::{Objection|YES}
:{Objection|NO}
:{Objection|NO}
::{Objection|YES}
:::{Objection|NO}
::::{Objection|YES}

but the output on the wikia is not formated. What' wrong?

>>7673152
nevermind, you need double {{

>>7673152
How is it in California buddy?

>>7673149
Not all strong arguments are complex, and not all weak arguments are simple. But try adding your objection to http://wikidialectics.org/Does_the_debate_format_here_promote_discussion%3F, see what happens.

>>7673149
If a strong argument is objected with dozens of fallacies (which is highly unlikely, given my experience on how users actually behave), then it's easy to object to them. Just point out the fallacy in the fallacies, end of the story.

Weak arguments are easier to object. Strong arguments are harder to object.

>>7673150
I try to make the most of life. Don't you?

writing a python script to generate random arguments, one moment please...

>>7673158
Pretty good man, 70 and sunny here. How are you?

>>7672993
There was a website like this that had a more user friendly interface. I forgot the name of it. Same guy?

>>7673170
>A strong argument can be criticized with dozens of logical fallacies. A strong argument has more to respond to. Therefore, a strong argument can have a greater quantity of counterarguments.

Nevermind, I've added it myself. ;-) Edit at will!

>>7673180
Hi, yes, FormalForum or ErgoForum, not sure which version you knew. That software was more user friendly, for sure, but this one is much much much more flexible, and has enormous technical advantages. It was a hard decision, but I switched. Also I'm a pro MediaWiki developer, so I can still do whatever I want with the software.

Holy shit, who created the debate at http://wikidialectics.org/Is_global_warming_real%3F with over 200 arguments?

Can you explain what you've done, anon? Awesome debate topic, btw.

This is how postmodernism gets ended. If we had such an arguing algorithm we could automatically generate responses to every postmodernist paper ever.

You could generate a response to postmodernist bullshit as soon as it gets posted. There is no way they would be able to keep up with that.

Whoever automates discourse will own it

>>7673339
You're right in that it would be easy to refute postmodernist bullshit. However, you're not right in believing that whoever automates discourse will own it, because automatic responses will probably lead to blocks or bans.

>>7673314
I did a little python scripto to generate a random argument structure, pulling phrases from essays for and against about global warming as needed.

The next step is to parse an argument structure and automatically reply to every SUSTAINED argument that I disagree with.

>>7673048
So like how it is in real life.