Polemics

¶POINT !
    You've already heard this a hundred times & know it's in the system.
    Do not attempt to "reconstruct from memory".

¶SEARCH !
    You've never heard that one?
    Maybe others already went down that path.

¶EXPAND !
    It's not in the system yet?
    Research, reference, argue & document it.

¶( sources )

via:
    * https://alternativeto.net/software/debategraph/
    * https://alternativeto.net/software/argunet-editor/
    * [!!!] #tomerge:
        (refer to °1 frags >d)
    _____________________________________________________
    * #toread:
        https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-23333-3_7.pdf !!!
    * https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Debate_tools :
        * tools list
        * feature list
    * https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dJJYgmaYYFmHoQM4L/debate-tools-an-experience-report?commentId=ryHWaaCRSazYWY4eT:
        (2010!)
        contains a wishlist
    * [...] ###

queries:
    debate tools
    argument mapping
    cyber polemics, reasoning systems, "expert systems"
    ###

¶* Kialo:
    reference:
        * https://www.kialo.com/is-capitalism-good-36713
        * https://www.kialo.com/is-donald-trump-a-good-president-6079
        * https://www.kialo.com/all-humans-should-be-vegan-2762
        * [...]

¶* Debategraph:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debategraph

¶* Arguman:
    https://alternativeto.net/software/arguman/
    https://en.arguman.org/
    _______
    * opensource, can self-host
    * trying: https://en.arguman.org/capitalism-is-not-the-best-system-for-economic-organisation
    * wrong - "IMPERSONAL":
        "workers are exploited" instead of "you are exploited"
    * List view is better

¶* Cucumber.io & BDD:
    <dmytri
    nothing connecting elenchos<>BDD before !

¶* Simple topical documents:
    * "anti communist myths debunked" @ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gxwhh-vdeB--47HM-20cEVRC9eAMhrapbNf0Sk8VSOs
    * [...]

¶* CreateDebate:
    https://www.createdebate.com/

¶* LiteMap (was Cohere)
    ... was Cohere! (now dead)
    """
    LiteMap is an online collaborative tool to visually structure and make sense of complex problems. With LiteMap face-to-face and online debates can be mapped visually by building knowledge maps, such as concept, argument and issue maps. These are network maps which are characterised by different semantic data models, and can be used to address different collective sense making needs (such as brainstorming, collaborative discussion and building common understating).
    """
    _________________
    another abandoned overfunded tool:
        """LiteMap was developed in the context of a recent FP7 Project CATALYST (http://catalyst-fp7.eu/) on Collective Applied Intelligence and Analytics for Social Innovation. Since its first launch in 2015 LiteMap has been used by over 1300 users, in 10 different countries, by 100 community groups, who built over 500 Maps to confirm an emerging public and education impact."""

¶* DebateArt:
    https://alternativeto.net/software/debateart/
    https://www.debateart.com/
    meh - just a forum with voting

¶* Loomio:
    ... really?
    it's just a forum with voting

¶* bcisive:
    https://www.bcisiveonline.com
    * meh designed like MS Word
    * check: interesting graphing syntax (I guess UML related)
    * ###

¶* CeaseFire:
    https://alternativeto.net/software/ceasefire/
    ???

¶* Rationale:
    https://alternativeto.net/software/rationale/

¶* Argunet editor:
    https://alternativeto.net/software/argunet-editor/

¶* IHMC CMAPS:
    found via this example: https://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/rid=1JJV2FNC4-7XWH68-1ST/DesirableImbalanceBetweenHumansAndNature(v0.5).cmap?rid=1JJV2FNC4-7XWH68-1ST&partName=htmljpeg
    ("is earth over-populated")
    Doesn't look very clear...
    -----------------------------
    More on this server:
        https://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/
    --------------------------------------------------
    """
    Cmap software is a result of research conducted at the Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition (IHMC). It empowers users to construct, navigate, share and criticize knowledge models represented as concept maps.
    """

¶* Wikidebate:
    https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikidebate
    https://en.wikidebates.org/wiki/Wikidebates:Main_Page
    ______
    "Wikidebates is the brain-child of the Structured Debate think tank, a French non-profit. "
    ________
    https://en.wikidebates.org/wiki/Wikidebates:What_is_Methodical_Debate%3F

¶* echo.to :
    https://github.com/echosystem/echo
    """
    echo is a joint Open Source project for active citizen participation - worldwide and for all people. It unites all players of society for a sustainable change through systemic redesign of our civilisation.
    """

¶* CLIPS / Flora-2 (Ergo Lite)

http://www.clipsrules.net/AboutCLIPS.html
http://flora.sourceforge.net/
"""
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning with Flora-2
Flora-2  (a.k.a. Ergo Lite) is an advanced object-oriented knowledge representation and reasoning system. It is a dialect of F-logic with numerous extensions, including meta-programming in the style of HiLog, logical updates in the style of Transaction Logic, and defeasible reasoning.  Applications include intelligent agents, Semantic Web, knowledge-based networking, ontology management, integration of information, security policy analysis, and more. 
"""
also does #RS

¶* "fact checker" articles
* https://www.techarp.com/articles/
* ###

¶* LIBERAL "DEMOCRATIC"

No "votes" - it's not a popularity contest.
(Kialo, etc)

¶* NOT STORIFIED

Less of a "set of pros and cons" narrative —
more 

¶* NOT GEARED TOWARDS APPLICATION

i want a "success rate":
a community of REAL PEOPLE applying these arguments to OTHER REAL PEOPLE

¶* "ONLY DEBATING"

https://www.kialo.com/search?q=apple :
questions are structured as "debates", not as "consequential calls to action"
there is no "you should sell your apple", or "you should quit your rent"

¶* NO GOALS → NO NARRATIVE → NO CLARITY

(since it's liberal values), i can't really browse efficiently:
the LEAST would be to somehow tag debates by who initiates, etc

¶* NO OPEN-EDITING

"git-based" would be best in this case?
padding might be too loose


<-------------------------------------------- (new) EVALUATION CRITERIA ↑

¶Basic "common sense" reader

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning :
        including:
            * sample size
            * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_population
            * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_(statistics)
            * hypothesis:
                """A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it."""
            * ... Do not suggest "suspicions" that are undeniable!:
                always think within terms of what would "need to happen" to change your mind
                if it's difficult, start with the most catastrophic
                this will also help to self-diagnose the "leakage" of how 
            * [...]
    * analyze intent & ideology:
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
    * sanity checking against "feelies" and "experiencers":
        Ok, so:
            you don't know anyone that had bad corona.
            Do you know anyone that died from diabetes? Cardiovascular? Heart attack? Alzheimer?
            OK, those are the biggest causes of death. So what the fuck is wrong with you?
    * [...]

### merge more from Telegram +R 20210118 !!!

¶[!!!] MVP

:
    A) just an index of existing left polemics:
        ... plus which to improve, etc
    B) out of that, a study to what needs to be done:
        (feature requests, etc)
    C) [...]

¶[!!] POST -- Ask for similar tools

>p2pl >TK >twitter
[...] ###

"""
Did anyone ever find tools for this you were actually able to use? Either offline, following a script, or online, magically linking to an exact point in an argument to save yourself from needing to retrace it?

I'm looking at Kialo, DebateGraph, Arguman ... but they all seem faulty designs. Embracing the bickery liberal "deliberation" paradigm, instead of something that would wing you step-by-step in shifting pop's xenophobia, or that you could slam under dumb tweets
"""

¶[!] "hyperelenchos" raw +CK → reccomendations

"""
I believe in a mass-diagnostic and possibly healing power of a mix of surveys and polemics ... A kind of hyperelenchos...
What questions would you ask somebody like this if you actually managed to have them on a machine that would like stabilise them from glitching

/// she sends links ///
### !!!

Hell yeah good leads. We too often forget to crosslink to mainline expertise.
"""

¶(2019/06) about Kialo & conflict moderation, when mods have conflict too!

https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/9585
Managing conflict in online debate communities
"""
Kialo is a novel peer production system focused on pro/con debate construction. Distributed moderator teams vet and accept claims submitted by writers. Moderators also edit and refactor debates as they grow. Thus, moderators play a critical role in cultivating and maintaining debates. Conflict between moderators is typical. It is a feature of argumentation and debate. However, not all conflict is productive. Conflict between moderators can undermine collaboration (by distracting from the task of managing debates) and drive attrition (by discouraging participation on the site altogether).
Based on a ten-month participant observation on Kialo, we identify a common source of conflict between moderators: adversarial beliefs and values.
Moderators are not neutral participants on Kialo. They take positions on debate topics.
We suggest foregrounding these positions, which are potential sources of conflict, through interface design as a scalable way to facilitate conflict management.
"""

¶"Debunking" makes things worse?

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3411764.3445642
<ed.saperia
Perverse Downstream Consequences of Debunking: Being Corrected by Another User for Posting False Political News Increases Subsequent Sharing of Low Quality, Partisan, and Toxic Content in a Twitter Field Experiment
"""
A prominent approach to combating online misinformation is to debunk false content. Here we investigate downstream consequences of social corrections on users’ subsequent sharing of other content. Being corrected might make users more attentive to accuracy, thus improving their subsequent sharing. Alternatively, corrections might not improve subsequent sharing - or even backfire - by making users feel defensive, or by shifting their attention away from accuracy (e.g., towards various social factors). We identified N=2,000 users who shared false political news on Twitter, and replied to their false tweets with links to fact-checking websites. We find causal evidence that being corrected decreases the quality, and increases the partisan slant and language toxicity, of the users’ subsequent retweets (but has no significant effect on primary tweets). This suggests that being publicly corrected by another user shifts one's attention away from accuracy - presenting an important challenge for social correction approaches.
"""

¶VOCAB— "Cogent"

(of an argument or case) clear, logical, and convincing.


<-------------------- ((new))