Webpages that agree or disagree

I believe we can design online forums that promote good debate. In order to have a good debate we need to bring all the stuff that support and oppose belief together to the same page. Isn't this obvious? Why is it that no one seems to understand that it doesn't prove anything if you make a good argument, but ignore those that disagree with you.

So my forums will have the top webpages that support and oppose a conclusion on the same page in tables like this:

 Webpages that agree Webpages that disagree
 1.  1. 

Google and Links as arguments and argument as links

Google makes billions of dollars every year because they have algorithms that tell them what the best pages are for search words. To do this, they rate each pages. Their algorithms are trade secrets. However their original algorithm counted links. They viewed links to a website as a vote for that website. They viewed links as a reason to believe that that webpage was valid. All things being equal, if one page had a hundred links coming to it, and another page had a thousand, it was assumed that the page with a thousand links was "better" for the purposes of page rankings.

However Google took it to the next level. They said if millions of people link to the New York times, then links from their website, would carry more weight. The people who link to the New York times lend them their credibility, when the New York Times links to other pages. This is an assumption that google made, that we don't have to. We can create a forum that brainstorms reasons to agree and disagree with each conclusion. We can evaluate each reason, and assign a score to the conclusion in a similar way that google ranks links, and webpages.

So for the purpose of my website a conclusion, is similar to a webpage, and a reason is the same as a link. You may say that you can't compare the two, but from a database management standpoint, my database would actually be much easier to set up. Google counts links to each website, and gives a score to the website making the link, and the website being linked to. In a similar way we'll create a forum for each conclusion, allow people to submit reasons to agree or disagree, and then we'll track the number of reasons to agree and disagree.

What if people linked to the New York times just to show how stupid they are? We don't have to make this mistake of miss-applied respect, because we can create a forum that separates reasons to agree and disagree into separate columns. We can make our links explicit, and define the argument exactly, without any approximation.

We will structure our forum the same way. Arguments can be evaluated by themselves, and they can also be used as reasons to agree or disagree with other conclusions. For instance their will be very little valid arguments against the belief that Bill Clinton lied about his sex life. The question remains, what percentage of that argument, should be applied to the conclusion that he was a bad president?

We can compare my forum to a tug of war, with many ropes. Each webpage on the left pulls the argument towards supporting the overall conclusion. Each webpage on the right pulls the conclusion the other way. Each webpage is evaluated. The webpage score represents the thickness of the rope, or how many people are pulling on the rope.

Each webpage will get its own page on the forum. On its forum page, people will be able to evaluate the content on that page, resulting in a page score. Webpages that are used as evidence to support or oppose different conclusions will have many reasons to agree and disagree with them. We will allow users to put these on the same page, in separate columns, and organize them with the best ones at the top of the page.

Many factors will be used to rank each webpage. One factor is the number and score of reasons to agree or disagree with the page. Did you catch that? Each reason will have reasons to agree and disagree with them, just like in normal life. Because each argument, in reality is its own conclusion. For instance each reason to agree or disagree that someone is a good president will have many reasons to agree or disagree with them, and so on.

Of course we will also allow users to rate arguments. But more than just a thumbs up or a thumbs down we will allow users to evaluate specific aspects of an arguments. For example: is an argument fair, accurate, does it exhibit any of the specific logical fallacies such as a straw man argument?

All these factors will result in a score for each webpage. However arguments are used to support or oppose many specific conclusions. For instance the belief that it was wrong for Germany to invade Poland, can be used to support different arguments, with different levels of validity.

Each reasons to agree or disagree submittal would include the belief that it supports or opposes a specific conclusion. You would click on a link to argue in support or opposition to each relationship.

On this website most of my reasons will be submitted to support non controversial topics surrounding family life.

Visit one of my other pages to see how videos can be used to support or oppose different conclusions.

Google assigns each website a score. We could use an algorithms that takes a webpages score (on a scale from 0 to 100%) and multiplies it by the percentage of agreement there is that that webpage supports an idea.

Obviously this would not be said to promote truth, just reflect in a usable way what "the internet" believes is worthy of linking to.

It is not a perfect way to promote an idea, but it is better than nothing and produce some interesting results

No comments:

Post a Comment