Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Manfred 05 November 2017 07:46:32PM 0 points [-]

Hm, the format is interesting. The end product is, ideally, a tree of arguments, with each argument having an attached relevance rating from the audience. I like that they didn't try to use the pro and con arguments to influence the rating of the parent argument, because that would be too reflective of audience composition.

Comment author: kialo 04 December 2017 01:05:01AM 0 points [-]

Thanks!

Comment author: jimrandomh 12 November 2017 11:42:37PM 1 point [-]

People keep rebuilding this thing. It's a mistake. If you tag all content as for or against something, it helps with sorting out genuinely binary balance-of-considerations issues, but almost nothing that's actually discussed, or that is actually worth discussing, fits this format. The most valuable content either clarifies, or pulls the rope sideways, or makes the original question moot. These can't fit in the template of an argument-structuring website, so argument-structuring websites don't get this content, so they aren't worth reading or participating in.

Comment author: kialo 04 December 2017 01:04:21AM 0 points [-]

Have you seen that you can do multi theses debates and thus evaluate non-binary issues?

Here is an example by a user: https://www.kialo.com/stand-or-kneel-2995/2995.0/2995.0

We allow for comments, on claims as an additional way of interacting, but we are always happy to learn more.

Comment author: kialo 04 December 2017 01:01:23AM 0 points [-]

Thx for the post mirefek. If you guys have suggestions on how to improve K, we are all ears.