Webpages in Belief Evaluation

What Are These Webpages?

Webpages that agree or disagree with a belief are digital resources used as evidence in evaluating that belief. Each webpage:

1. Receives a Score: Assessed based on its credibility, evidence quality, and relevance.
2. Links to Specific Arguments: Strengthens or weakens related arguments within the belief system.
3. Categorizes by Type: Organized into types such as research articles, analyses, case studies, or opinion pieces.

These pages serve as tools for providing context, supporting evidence, and real-world examples that inform the belief's evaluation.

---

Why Are They Important?

1. Accessible Evidence:
   • Webpages make evidence available to all users, ensuring transparency.
2. Measuring Consensus:
   • By tracking agreement and disagreement, webpages help gauge how beliefs are perceived across different contexts.
3. Understanding the Spread of Ideas:
   • They illustrate how arguments evolve, spread, and interact online.
4. Promoting Balanced Analysis:
   • Curating both supporting and opposing resources ensures that beliefs are evaluated holistically.

---

How Does It Work?

For each belief:

1. Two Lists Are Created:

   • Supporting Webpages: Resources that provide evidence or arguments supporting the belief.
   • Opposing Webpages: Resources that challenge or contradict the belief.

2. Webpages Are Scored:

   • Evidence Quality (0-100): Measures the reliability and credibility of the information.
   • Logical Coherence (0-100): Evaluates the consistency and validity of arguments presented.
   • Relevance (0-100): Assesses how closely the webpage's content pertains to the belief in question.

3. Linked to Specific Arguments:

   • Each webpage is directly connected to the arguments it strengthens or weakens, maintaining a clear relationship between the source and the debate.

4. Dynamic Scoring and Updates:

   • As new evidence or counterarguments emerge, webpages are added, updated, or re-evaluated to reflect the evolving discourse.

---

Example Application:

Belief: "We shouldn't let leaders exploit crises through false choices."

• Supporting Webpages:

  1. Democracy watchdog reports documenting the abuse of emergency powers.
  2. Academic analyses highlighting patterns of crisis exploitation.
  3. Investigative journalism uncovering manufactured emergencies.

• Opposing Webpages:

  1. Policy papers advocating for executive discretion during crises.
  2. Historical accounts showing successful emergency powers use.
  3. Crisis management studies illustrating the benefits of centralized responses.

Each webpage’s score would reflect its quality, coherence, and relevance to the debate, directly influencing the belief's evaluation and the strength of associated arguments.

---

How This Integrates with the Idea Stock Exchange

1. Structured Moderation:
   • Beliefs are evaluated using evidence from webpages that are systematically organized into supporting and opposing lists.
2. Transparent Scoring:
   • Users can see how each webpage contributes to the belief’s overall score, fostering trust in the system.
3. Encouraging Engagement:
   • Users can submit, critique, or score webpages, actively participating in refining the belief evaluation process.
4. Enhanced Analysis:
   • Dynamic scoring ensures that beliefs are continuously refined as new evidence and arguments are introduced.