Pro/Con Webpages

Enhanced Method for Scoring and Integrating Webpages into Online Debates:

Pro/Con Argumentation for Webpages:

Objective: Identify the best web pages that support or oppose each belief.

Mechanism: Users submit pro/con arguments assessing whether a webpage is pro, con, or balanced regarding a particular belief and regarding the web page's quality. These arguments will have sub-arguments addressing their verification level, lack of logical fallacies, relevance, and importance.

Logical Coherence Assessment:

Focus: Examine the content on each webpage for the presence of logical fallacies.

User Participation: As with everything else on this webpage, we will use reason rank to evaluate the relative performance of pro/con arguments to establish whether the relative performance of ideas that the content is logically sound and fallacies-free. This will involve quotations from the site and pro/con arguments that the content is or isn't a logical fallacy. These arguments will also be evaluated for logical fallacies, verification level, importance, and relevance.

Independent Verification of Claims:

Verification Process: Assess the extent to which claims on the webpage have been independently verified.

Community Input: Similar to above, users will access the level of independent verification of content from the website.

Relevance to the Belief:

Evaluation: Determine how relevant the content of a webpage is to the central belief it is associated with.

Criteria: Use specific arguments and evidence to establish the connection between the webpage content and the belief in question. A webpage may have great content. However, depending on the performance of these pro/con arguments, it may have a low linkage score to specific beliefs and high linkage or relevance scores to other beliefs. For example, a webpage publishing the results of ice-sheet measurements may have a high linkage score to a belief about global warming. This belief may have high linkage scores to other beliefs, such as a global carbon tax or carbon trading platform.

Importance to the Topic:

Assessment: Gauge the importance of the webpage’s content in the broader context of the topic.

User Engagement: Users discuss and score the significance of the web page's contributions to understanding the belief. The above relevance score answers the question: If this were true, would it necessarily strengthen that conclusion? This score indicates the degree to which a specific question, relative to other considerations, determines a conclusion's truth. Spiting in the ocean may raise the sea level. However, it is a minor contributor, so we need a separate importance score and the logically dependent score mentioned above.

Dynamic Scoring System:

Implementation: Aggregate the performance of pro/con arguments for each of the above criteria to determine individual logic, verification, relevant, and importance scores. Use these upvotes, evaluations, experts' input, and other user-chosen measures to develop overall scores for different websites.

Outcome: This score dictates whether and how prominently a webpage is listed on each belief page.

Belief Page Integration:

Structure: The front page for each belief will feature the top supporting and opposing web pages, determined by the aggregated scores from user evaluations.

Transparency: Indicates how each webpage ranks according to the community’s assessment across different criteria.

Continuous User Interaction:

Engagement: Users continuously contribute to and revise the scoring of webpages as new information or perspectives emerge.

Adaptability: The platform dynamically updates the webpage rankings to reflect current evaluations.

Comprehensive Debate Facilitation:

Purpose: Provide users with a nuanced and well-rounded understanding of different viewpoints on a belief through rigorously evaluated web pages.

Benefit: Encourages informed decision-making and a deeper comprehension of the topic.

Conclusion:

This enhanced method for evaluating and integrating webpages into online debates strongly emphasizes community-driven analysis, logical coherence, and relevance to the topic. By allowing users to actively engage in the evaluation process, the platform ensures that the web pages presented are relevant, vital, accurate, and logically sound, contributing to a more informed and balanced online debate environment.

Algorithms can be used to group similar ways of saying the same thing and verify that the webpage still says what users said it said, among other transparent tasks, with user approval.