Relevant: TIPAESA, a general Wiki-format for more complex and especially for policy debates, in which a number of positions may be attached to some, perhaps more abstract ‘issue’, and the chain of evidence (and thus, sources and their purported authority) supporting any given argument (either for or against the position) is thought of as especially relevant.
Didn’t know about Arguman, there are some nice discussions going on there. However, I see at least two key differences between the projects. First, Wikidebate is designed so that arguments are not signed and can therefore be improved upon by others. Second, arguments in Arguman are painted red or green depending on if they are in for or against the issue, while on Wikidebate the color depends on wether they are SUSTAINED or REFUTED, which is calculated algorithmically using the dialectic algorithm.
Deleted
Relevant: TIPAESA, a general Wiki-format for more complex and especially for policy debates, in which a number of positions may be attached to some, perhaps more abstract ‘issue’, and the chain of evidence (and thus, sources and their purported authority) supporting any given argument (either for or against the position) is thought of as especially relevant.
Very useful. I’d like to see either this or Arguman get big.
Didn’t know about Arguman, there are some nice discussions going on there. However, I see at least two key differences between the projects. First, Wikidebate is designed so that arguments are not signed and can therefore be improved upon by others. Second, arguments in Arguman are painted red or green depending on if they are in for or against the issue, while on Wikidebate the color depends on wether they are SUSTAINED or REFUTED, which is calculated algorithmically using the dialectic algorithm.