debate-graph
A better way to kill zombies.
What is this?
This is a proof of concept "app" for making online debates civilized (again?)
Why is this?
If you ever tried to follow an online (Twitter, Facebook, Whatever) argument (or participated in one) without experiencing an immediate impulse to throw your PC out the window and then get started on a plot to destroy humanity then you are clearly a superior being (or there's something terribly wrong with you.) But seriously, these sort of threads are rife with inconsistent logic, "alternative facts", lack of references and most annoyingly zombie arguments. Zombie arguments are arguments that cannot be killed even though they have been debunked over, and over, and over, and over again over decades or even in the same thread a couple of hundred lines ago. Yet they just keep cropping up like a persistent weed.
The idea behind this "project" is to organize online debates into something that can be reasoned about by humans in a tractable manner. Each argument references an existing entry (issue) and is automatically linked by github so you can conveniently jump between them. When you start a new entry github will automatically suggest existing issues that it finds similar -- look closely and make sure you're actually making an original statement. If a poster/debater ignores the signs and posts anyway then this can be easily flagged as a dup and closed by others. Too many of these and repeated necromancers may find themselves out of the game...
How to use this?
This "app" uses github issues as a "no code" solution. Create a new repository using this one as a template and you're all set to get started. It's all very much based on a code of honour of sorts and expects everyone to behave according to the rules set by the moderator/repo owner. You make it your own.
However, I do have a few ideas on how I believe it should work:
- A new argument entry is a new github issue.
- Start by referencing an existing issue that your argument supports or opposes (skip if this is an entirely new argument -- which practically should happen only once)
- Avoid duplicates. Zombies shall be dispatched swiftly and mercilessly! The argument graph must remain acyclic at all times. Cycles will be destroyed as soon as they are found without notice!
- Argue in 300 chars or less. It is true that some arguments just cannot be made this concise but please try! If you find that your entry counts a number of things in support of an argument then create a number of different entries that all reference the entry at hand. If you find that you're making multiple arguments on one thread of thought then create multiple entries each referencing its predecessor.
- Use references to back your claims. Some arguments can be picked apart just because of inconsistent logic. Factual arguments require to be backed up by existing resources. Try to add references even if it seems like common sense because some people will just keep arguing with the obvious.
- Keep it on topic. It's easy to get personal when debating anything. Attack the argument; not the debater. Entries which include any reference to the debater making the argument (good or bad) will be either revised by OP or closed entirely.
- Issue comments are for meta discussions. These can be requests to edit, flagging inappropriate posts, tagging other users to come take a look and all sorts of "meta" things. These are not the place to make your arguments! A new issue is.