Introduction

ProveIt is an on-line debate and discussion forum designed for people passionate about their opinions and confident in their ability to defend them with facts and sound logic. It solves two major problems found in similar websites:

  1. Although many existing Internet debate and discussion forums host lively and contentious arguments, they offer nothing to help separate truth from fiction or expose fallacies and biases. The final result is usually a jumbled collection of personal attacks, passive aggressive insinuations, and discursive ramblings. Valid points are often ignored or lost in the clutter. Personal opinions are rarely changed as a result. Some of these forums provide voting mechanisms designed to identify a "winner" but this approach is woefully subjective and effectively meaningless. ProveIt strongly believes that debate outcomes should be based on objective facts and logic rather than popular sentiment.
  2. Discussion threads in most Internet forums are difficult to read. They invariably utilize a linear style format with the entire dialogue displayed in a single scrollable list. It's possible that any given comment is in response to another post hundreds of lines above it. Anything beyond the simplest discourse quickly becomes mentally unmanageable.

ProveIt solves the first problem with its primary objective to validate (or invalidate) any opinion presumed to be based on facts (as opposed to personal perspective or bias). Basically, a debate in ProveIt is represented by a multi-level graphical tree structure whose nodes consist of an initial opinion (level 0) followed by a cascading barrage of responses any number of levels deep. (See figure 1) It's important to understand these responses are strictly limited to objections! When first submitted, an opinion will be shaded green (suggesting valid). It will remain that way until contested with one or more objections. At this point it will become red (suggesting invalid) and the objections will be green. Supporters of an opinion will examine its objections looking for inaccurate facts and flawed logic, and possibly contest them with their own objections causing their status to revert to red. And on and on it goes. As a debate grows over time, it will start looking like a virtual Christmas tree with objections (and possibly the initial opinion) toggling back and forth between green and red. A post will remain green as long as it has no valid objections but all it takes is one to render it red. Eventually, all conceivable objections at all levels will be thoroughly analyzed exposing any falsehoods and/or fallacies. Objections cannot be ignored or overlooked without consequences. They must be either challenged or conceded. As a debate's branches eventually become atomized and fully resolved, its initial opinion will converge on red or green. The "losing" side will have little choice but to capitulate. His arguments will have been exposed as false or weak and he will be rendered powerless to change the final outcome.

Proveitdebatetree

ProveIt solves the second problem by permitting users to easily navigate these debate trees allowing them to focus on individual nodes and their direct objections. They can display these objections in "Expanded Mode", if desired, revealing all levels of offspring, or "Collapsed Mode" to display direct objections only. For even greater visual efficiency, users can adjust their overall verbosity level (as well as individual posts) further controlling the amount of information displayed.

Site Objectives:

  1. Develop a debate forum in which "truth" is revealed and popular sentiment (voting) is irrelevant. It's not about finding the most popular answer. It's about finding the correct answer.
  2. Develop a debate forum that encourages thoughtful posts and open-minded discourse. It's not about "winning" the debate. It's about learning the truth! It's about probing deep within our psyches and discovering our own biases and motivations.
  3. Develop a debate forum that discourages "hip shot" responses and the urge to ram half-baked opinions down everyone's throat.
  4. Develop a debate forum that rewards truth and accuracy.
  5. Create a tool to assist with identifying logical fallacies and cognitive biases.
  6. Provide links and blogs educating users on basic logic, argumentative theory, philosophy and, of course, "The ProveIt Way!".
  7. Make online debating fun. A scoring and ranking system will reward top users.

Features:

Topic types -- There are three topic types users can create: Opinions (red or green), Initiators (yellow), and Casual (blue). Opinions are expressed as personal beliefs (typically controversial). Initiators are used to solicit opinions (without committing to one yourself). Casual topics can be anything the poster thinks will be interesting or amusing.

Templates -- Objections can be generated manually or selected from a database of pre-defined templates including logical fallacies and cognitive biases. Future enhancements will include a "wizard" that will assist with identifying these fallacies and biases.

Sidebars -- While it's important that debates be limited to objections, the ability to post anything else (questions, observations, etc.) is possible in parallel sidebars. Participants and authorized observers can post unrestricted (within reason) comments to any node within a debate tree. It should be understood that the "meat" of a debate takes place in the objections. The sidebars are where informal discussions take place.

Privacy -- When creating a new topic, the originator must decide whether to declare it public or private. A public debate means anyone can participate. A private debate requires him to identify participants and declare whether to allow "Public Viewing" and "Public Sidebars". This determines whether the public will be permitted to view the debate and/or post comments even while blocked from participating. For example, imagine a private debate on gun control between two heavyweight political pundits like Michael Moore & Rand Paul with public viewing and public sidebars turned on. Anyone could watch and post comments but not engage in the actual debate. This would be the debating equivalent of an Ali vs. Frazier boxing match! The most popular of such debates are displayed in the "Marquee" list.

Lone Wolf -- Because debates are limited to objections only (other than sidebars), by definition, all even-level posts are in support of the initial opinion while all odd-level posts are in opposition. This allows for an interesting feature called "Lone Wolf". When starting a new debate the originator can select this option which basically pits him alone against the world. This means only he will be permitted to post even-level objections and vice-versa. This feature is intended for people confident in their knowledge on the given subject and don't want any help defending their position.

Channels -- A cousin of the "Lone Wolf", a Channel is a Casual topic that similarly restricts interaction between participants. The OP can only respond to other people while other people can only respond to the OP. So it's like an AMA ("Ask Me Anything", in Reddit), only better. An AMA is nothing but a topic in which the OP promises to participate for a designated amount of time (usually about an hour). That's it. Anyone can respond to anyone. A Channel will provide a personal forum in which the OP can respond to as many questions as he likes, whenever he likes, as long as he likes (perhaps indefinitely). Keep in mind, only he can respond to questions/comments so the topic remains very uncluttered. The most popular Channels are displayed in the "Top Channels" list.

Teams -- Private and Semi-private topics (Opinions and Initiators) can be divided into teams if desired. With Opinions, this means one team will argue in favor of the Initial Opinion while the other will argue against it. This is possible due to the “objections only” rule. All even level objections serve to support the initial opinion while all odd level objections oppose it. Because of this it's trivial to restrict each team's ability to submit replies accordingly. With Initiators, each Initial Opinion submitted is treated as above. Teammates are forced into lockstep agreement with their objections.

Scoring -- The nature of the website encourages, if not enforces, thoughtful and reasonable discourse. A scoring/rating system keeps track of user performance and ranks everyone accordingly. So while ProveIt is an effective tool for revealing the truth, it's also fun! Competitive users become very interested (if not obsessed) with defending their opinions and maintaining their ratings.

Although users will appreciate the mechanisms provided within ProveIt to help validate their opinions, they should understand its ultimate purpose is to foster rational thought and reveal the truth no matter where it lies. Seasoned users recognize this and embrace the virtues of patience, thoughtfulness, and understanding. They are a very introspective bunch and have learned to not only recognize the pervasiveness of cognitive biases in others but to realize their own opinions are often tainted as well. They have learned to think before they post and check their biases before attacking anyone they disagree with. They never initiate or enter a debate with a bull-headed attitude determined to prove themselves right, but rather to seek the truth and learn.

Users will find many interesting uses for ProveIt! including:

  1. Resolving controversial debates
    1. (e.g., (Public) “In my opinion, abortion should be legal.”)
    2. (e.g., (Public) “In my opinion, personal ownership of firearms should be criminalized.”)
  2. Resolving family conflicts
    1. (e.g., (Private) “In my opinion, you are too hard on Johnny”)
    2. (e.g., (Private) “In my opinion, we should not get divorced.”)
  3. Conducting debate competitions
    1. (e.g., (Initiator, Private, Public Viewing & Sidebars) “This house believes the death penalty is inappropriate and should be banned.”)
    2. (e.g., (Initiator, Private, Public Viewing & Sidebars) “This house believes that global warming is being accelerated by human activity.”)
  4. Deliberating court cases
    1. (e.g., (Private) “In my opinion, the defendant is guilty of attempted murder.”)
    2. (e.g., (Private) “In my opinion, the defendant is innocent of all charges.”)
  5. Decision making tool
    1. (e.g., (Private, Public Viewing) “In my opinion, we should go to the Bahamas for our summer vacation.”)
    2. (e.g., (Private, Public Viewing & Sidebars) “In my opinion, Susie should choose Harvard.”)
  6. Teaching tool
    1. (e.g., (Initiator, Private, Teams) “Today's assignment is to form and debate an opinion on religion. Extra points will be awarded for every fallacy identified.”