If the dishonest debater disputes some honest claim, where honest has an argument for their answer that actually bottoms out, dishonest will lose—the honest debater will pay to recurse until they get to a winning node.
This part makes sense.
If the the dishonest debater makes some claim and plan to make a circular argument for it, the honest debater will give an alternative answer but not pay to recurse. If the dishonest debater doesn’t pay to recurse, the judge will just see these two alternative answers and won’t trust the dishonest answer.
So in this case it’s a stalemate, presumably? If the two players disagree but neither pays to recurse, how should the judge make a decision?
Both debaters make claims. Any claims that are only supported by circular arguments will be ignored. If an honest claim that’s supported by a good argument is disputed, the honest debater will pay to recurse, and will give their good argument
This was a very interesting comment (along with its grandparent comment), thanks—it seems like a promising direction.
However, I’m still confused about whether this would work. It’s very different from judging procedure outlined here; why is that? Do you have a similarly detailed write-up of the system you’re describing here?
I’m actually less concerned about loops and more concerned about arguments which are infinite trees, but the considerations are similar. It seems possible that the proposal you’re discussing very significantly addresses concerns I’ve had about debate.
I was trying to describe something that’s the same as the judging procedure in that doc! I might have made a mistake, but I’m pretty sure the key piece about recursion payments is the same. Apologies that things are unclear. I’m happy to try to clarify, if there were particular aspects that seem different to you.
Yeah, I think the infinite tree case should work just the same—ie an answer that’s only supported by an infinite tree will behave like an answer that’s not supported (it will lose to an answer with a finite tree and draw with an answer with no support)
It seems possible that the proposal you’re discussing very significantly addresses concerns I’ve had about debate.