Ideas for Wiki-Debate.com / DebateSherpa.com

Further Developed Ideas for Wiki-Debate.com / DebateSherpa.com By Dan Abrams   First Draft "Executive Summary"   RAISON D'ETRE: Wiki-Debate.com / DebateSherpa.com will enable users to engage in global debates that actually connect the "echo chambers" and definitively resolve specious arguments so that those debates can be more productive.   FEATURES:   1) Anyone can establish himself/herself as a "Debate Sherpa"; this is someone who frames a given debate and provides succinct overviews of that debate's relevant points with links to credible sources.   2) Users can be introduced to the site by a Debate Sherpa they know or they can search for Debate Sherpas that have particular interests, beliefs or bona-fides.   3) Every page can be referenced and linked-to by anyone else. In this way any Debate Sherpa preaching to his choir can be effectively challenged by any other Debate Sherpa.   4) Every argument (web page) can be searched for its "back links" to supporting arguments/links AND ALSO to its counter arguments (both on the site and on other sites). In this way users can see  "what the other side is thinking" from its perspective. This is in stark contrast to current discourse vulnerable to intellectually poisoning by a disingenuously framed debate that includes straw men, misrepresents opposition and excludes valid counter-arguments.   5) Every URL/link referenced in a debate can be searched for its "back links" to supporting arguments AND ALSO to its counter arguments (both on the site and on other sites). In this way users can search the site to see if a given argument (posted elsewhere on the web) has a counter-argument.   6) By requiring undeletable pages there can be no fraudulent "rewriting of history". Rewritten pages can be featured on old (subsequently disavowed) pages but nothing is ever erased. This permanence may (hopefully) discourage the "trolls" and "flame throwers" so toxic to productive debate while simultaneously encouraging more thoughtful arguments. Let the million+ other blogs be where people spew their first drafts. Wiki-Debate.com will be where they come to craft their final drafts and seek definitive arguments from others.   7) Popular Debate Sherpas can gain followings and enable subscriptions to their debates. Popular arguments can be referenced and thus popularize effective Debate Sherpas. Even effective debaters (pundits, talk show hosts etc.) not yet on Wiki-Debate.com can still be utilized in productive debates and thus encourage further adoption by their respective fans.   8) By precluding anonymity and requiring a higher level of authentication, Wiki-Debate.com will encourage accountability and further discourage the "trolls" and "flame throwers".   9) By enabling our own "Wiki-Debate.com's Producitve Debate Code" there will be more accountability and thus necessarily more corrections and less tolerance of specious and previously discredited arguments.       First Draft "Mission Statement" / Market Need   The Problem that this Venture Seeks to Address: Productive debates are rare but should be popular.   All too often, important debates are made toxic by Machiavellian pundits, politicians and powerbrokers. They cynically win short-term political points with a facile-minded audience by using old, specious arguments (or blatant lies) that others have repeatedly, objectively disproven using unassailable evidence and logic.   Other websites have sought to address this problem with varying degrees of success. One set is the "fact-checking" sites that respond to quotes made by prominent players in a debate. They do research and come up with their evidence for why they deem a quote to be true or false. The big sites in this set include: - www.Politifact.com - www.FactCheck.org - www.MediaMatters.org - www.snopes.com - www.truthorfiction.com - (every political party and office tends to have their own "fact check" site)   But none of them provide a fair and overarching framework for debates to be organized. Another set of sites specifically seeks to address this problem. The main sites in this set include: - www.DebateMaps.com - debatepedia.idebate.org - www.createdebate.com However none is particularly intuitive or well organized. Debatepedia seems to suffer from particularly simplistic paradigms that assume there are only two sides to an argument.   The debate sites and all "fact check" sites have a fairly stark lack of "universal accountability" in that the user is supposed to just trust them. When they choose to provide sources with external links as validation this seems to work out fine. However "universal accountability" is crucial, and by that term I mean a method for inclusion of all possible counter-arguments and evidence.   Consequently, the same debates tend to happen in every corner of the internet and unfortunately these corners tend to be "echo chambers" of like-minded zealots. False information that, if true, would buttress their arguments gets easily spread which further toxifies public discourse.   There is currently no integration of the opposing sites. There is currently no consistent, reliable, efficient way to ensure all points of view are directly addressed so that bogus arguments can be more easily dismissed. Let's stop having the same B.S. debates and make some progress. Wiki-Debate.com will be that solution. Goal of this Venture: Promote "Productive Debate" of important issues.  (see acronym "OHELOALT")             Defined as:            • Open-minded                                     • Honest                                     • Evidence-based                                     • Logical                                     • Organized                                     • Accountable                                     • Lasting                                     • Thorough             There is reasoning behind that particular order of priorities which I'd be             happy to explain to you later.   Foundation:   One of the most important first steps in a productive debate is the elimination of misunderstandings. The most useless debates are those between two sides that actually agree but didn't first effectively attempt to understand each other.   It is useful, not to mention inspiring, to hold the foundational belief that, in any debate, "When each side knows everything the other side knows and both sides adhere to logic and reason then there will be the greatest chance at agreement". In so doing, the only possibilities for a lack of consensus must then be based on differing priorities. I have a consequential belief that priorities themselves can (and eventually must) be reviewed with equal rigor resulting in more commonly-accepted priorities. In that way, we may begin with as much "common ground" and agreed-upon "first principles" as possible. Then our debates will be most productive.   MUCH, MUCH MORE TO COME…