Our Platform for Outlining Colorado’s Future

John Stuart Mill , an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century and a teacher of  utilitarianism , albeit his teachings  are a bit different from Jeremy Bentham's philosophy Reasons   to agree When you live in a society with laws, the ends (your goals) do not justify illegal means (or ways of accomplishing those goals) . You are a hypocrite if you rely on the law to protect you, but you think you can break the law to accomplish your vision of the greater good . We need to examine both the ends and the means of our actions .  From a practical standpoint, if everyone thought the end justified the means, then the world would be a much worse place, because an extremist view of the ends justifying the means would allow you to kill those who disagreed with you. This would result in a lot of war, and murder.  A lot of people have justified their actions by saying that the end justifies the means.  God will not require us to do evil, to...

There will be slightly different forms for evaluating the different types of argument, because specific questions can be tailored to promote better quality depending on the type of argument being made. For instance, a photo submitted as a reason to agree or disagree might have different issues that need to be addressed related to exaggeration of political cartoons, or appeal to emotion. Linkage Scores The following equation could be used to add more points to valid linkages between assumptions, arguments, and conclusions: ·          LV n :      Number of times someone has verified the logic of a an assumption and conclusion relationship ·          n:         Number of times a verification is removed from a conclusion. A verification of a logical argument that supports a conclusion is an n=1 relationship. A verification of an argument that suppo...

Until we have algorithms that can automatically promote better arguments (by rewarding good behaviors, punishing bad behaviors, and removing spam, and trolls) we may need administrators. There are a number of ways of finding administrators. We could draw from the field of conflict resolution and dispute mediation. For instance we could offer training and give tests for skills that have been proven to resolve conflicts. There is a whole field of conflict resolution, which already has standards of training for good moderators. For specific arguments, we could give slightly more weight to opinions by “certifiable experts” in that field. For each person who asserts they are an expert we could have an algorithm to determine how many extra points we would give their vote. I propose the following equation and list of definitions: ·          PR n :      Number of professors who remember or recommend a student. ...

Abstract  I propose that we build the SQL code that would facilitate an online forum. This forum would use a relational database to track reasons to agree and disagree with conclusions. It would also allow you to submit a belief as a reason to support another belief (see image 1 below):  Figure 1: Arguments used to support other arguments Arguments are currently made on websites, in books, and even in videos and songs. It would be powerful to outline all the arguments that agree or disagree with a conclusion and put them on the same page as seen below: Figure 2: Arguments go from websites, books, songs, videos, into a relational database and are presented with their structure Having the structure of how all these arguments are used to support each other, could allow us to automatically strengthen or weaken a conclusion's score based on the score of their assumptions. The purpose of the Idea Stock Exchange is to find ways to give conclusions scores based on the quality and quan...

Reasons to agree : It would help us move towards understanding if web forum designers rewarded those who can demonstrate that they understand those with whom they disagree with.  There are many ways discussion forum designers can reward those who demonstrate that they understand those whom they disagree with. Web-designers could test users ability to properly identify similar concepts, from multiple choice options. Perhaps people who have their comments evaluated could have special consideration in evaluating weather or not the person who disagreed got their statement right.  Maybe before you disagree with someone you have to put into your own words exactly which part you disagreed with. You could do this by highlighting or bolding the part that you disagree with.  Web designers would help online debate if they created web forums that allowed users to identify specifically which portions of text they agree and disagree with.  Not identifying exa...

It's essential to restructure online debates to ensure that reasons supporting and opposing a belief coexist on the same platform. True understanding and resolution in any debate come not from overlooking the counterarguments but from directly engaging with them. Ignoring an opponent's perspectives and data is akin to navigating a debate with blinders on. It limits the depth of the discussion and often leads to an echo chamber effect, where one's own beliefs are amplified without challenge, stunting intellectual growth and understanding.  Constructive debates require acknowledging and addressing the full spectrum of views, which is why having reasons to agree and disagree presented together is crucial. This approach fosters a more holistic and nuanced understanding of issues, allowing participants to weigh different viewpoints fairly and make more informed decisions. By structuring online debates in this way, we encourage not just the exchange of ideas but the cultivation o...

If our beliefs and arguments were entered into a relational databases, we could:  tag arguments as either a reason to agree or disagree with a particular belief. This would be beneficial because:  We could post the results so that reasons to agree or disagree with a conclusion would be on the same webpage. It would be beneficial to have all the reasons to agree and disagree with a belief on the same page.   assign scores to arguments assign scores to beliefs, based on the score of the arguments for and against the beliefs assign scores to beliefs, based on other beliefs that are used to support or oppose them. For instance the belief that the middle class should get a tax break, has many reasons to agree or disagree with it, and it can also be used as a reasons to support or oppose other beliefs, like the belief that we should support politicians who agree or disagree with a middle class tax cut.  tag them with intelligent meta data, to ...