Revision as of 21:25, 3 September 2011; Myclob
) ←Older revision
| Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
When you click on a link you shouldn't just get supporting quotations, you should get a list of reasons to agree and disagree.
Reasons to agree
- We should look at the strength of sub-arguments also. We need to go all the way back to fundamental beliefs. If you follow every argument back far enough, the conclusion is based on the belief that we should try to improve the world. We just all believe their are different ways to improve the world, but we need to go all the way back to the bottom, and evaluate all the assumptions. The way I see it our conclusions are built like those cheerleader pyramids. The conclusion is the person on the top, and the arguments are all the reasons to agree. But you need both columns if you are going to evaluate the validity of each sub argument. Only having "supporting quotations" is like trying build a pyramid tower, with only one-handed cheerleaders. When you have an argument you need to say, on the one hand, but you also need to say, on the other hand. When you only list supporting quotations, you are not able to outline the reasons to agree and disagree all the way down to the floor.
- It seems like the whole purpose of this website is to promote the belief that we need both sides of an argument to discuss a topic on the same page... The problem with the way debates happen now is no one talks to each other... they just talk about, and past each other. Putting each side of an argument on the same page is the only way to get each side together... it is logical... it is how our brain works... it just makes sense that you would have both sides on the same page, so you can compare the arguments from each side, to see which one you agree with... it just seems natural that you would read the reasons to agree and disagree, you could then evaluate the validity of each argument, perhaps giving each argument a score, and then giving the overall argument a score, indicating which side you are on... Each argument is its own thesis with reasons to agree and disagree with it, or at least reasons to agree or disagree that a fact can be used as a reason to support the overall idea... this is not argument about the fact itself, but an argument over the linkage of the fact as an argument to support an idea... so each assertion could be given a score for its own independent value, and then each belief could be given a score evaluating its validity as a reason to agree or disagree with another belief. For instance the belief that CO2 is released from the burning of fossil fuels is going to have a very high score. Their are a lot of very good arguments to support these beliefs, and each of these arguments can be verified by facts, that can be verified, and that you would damage your credibility in a site of rational people, if you tried discrediting... but this belief would have a different scores when used as a reason to support a carbon tax, or carbon credit program.
Reasons to disagree