What were some specific ideas you had for “solving debates”? I was hoping Arbital would take the debate around a given topic and organize it into a tree. You start with an assertion that branches into supporting and opposing arguments, then those branch into rebuttals, then those branch into counter-rebuttals, etc.
That’s one approach we ruled out pretty much from the start because that kind of structure is hard to read and laborious to create and maintain. However that mechanic on the blog level makes sense and that’s basically how debates work right now in the wild.
Our main approach was creating “claims”. Blogs would reuse claims and the discussion around each claim. I’d say that part was actually moderately successful.
One idea we played around with but didn’t get to implement was allowing comments to easily leverage double-crux structure.
What were some specific ideas you had for “solving debates”? I was hoping Arbital would take the debate around a given topic and organize it into a tree. You start with an assertion that branches into supporting and opposing arguments, then those branch into rebuttals, then those branch into counter-rebuttals, etc.
That’s one approach we ruled out pretty much from the start because that kind of structure is hard to read and laborious to create and maintain. However that mechanic on the blog level makes sense and that’s basically how debates work right now in the wild.
Our main approach was creating “claims”. Blogs would reuse claims and the discussion around each claim. I’d say that part was actually moderately successful.
One idea we played around with but didn’t get to implement was allowing comments to easily leverage double-crux structure.