What is The Argument Clinic

The Argument Clinic is an experimental debate website. It functions similarly to other web forums. Anybody can join, propose topics, or enter into a debate for an existing proposed topic. Everybody with a strong opinion is encouraged to participate, and virtually any topic is acceptable. The format and general approach of the debate, however, is different from other debates online or in person. It's aim is to approach debate in a manner that reaches the truth more effectively than with common debate. This page gives an overview of what these differences are, and why I believe they will be more effective.

As of now, this is an alpha release. The technology, as well as the psychology involved, are still experimental. Any comments, questions, or complaints would be greatly appreciated. Please contact me at illlogic@argumentclinic.net

How does it work?

The Cast of Characters

Mediator

First, there is a mediator (Because of the scope of this role, this term is used instead of "moderator"). The mediator has two main tasks. First, he or she identifies and clears roadblocks in the debate. One example of this is getting debaters to agree on, and then enforcing, definitions of terms. Another example is identifying and prohibiting (with the agreement of both debaters) irrelevant topics (to avoid distraction). Secondly, the mediator is tasked with identifying sub-issues within the issue, and spawning subdebates. More on this below.

Overall, the mediator is (ideally) someone who is observant enough to understand where both debaters are coming from, and can guide the debate in the direction of resolution. He or she should be able to identify what it is that is keeping the debaters from agreeing, and focusing the discussion there. The mediator has to make judgements such that both debaters agree on each step. Ideally, in addition to being insightful, he or she also must have a reputation for being fair and unbiased.

As of now, I (known here as Ill Logic) will be the only mediator. This is of course not to say that I'm the most insightful or fair person out there. However, I feel that, since this is a new format, and I am the one proposing it, I would like to set an example of how I envision this site working. Once I feel that people get the gist of how this site should work, I will allow others to mediate.

Debaters

With the current design, each debate will have two debaters. The debaters should ideally represent strong, and possibly extreme points of view, to give the best possible case for that view, and to maximize the range of arguments made. Debaters are encouraged to exhaust the arguments that can be made for their side, so the topic can be analyzed as completely as possible. They are also not discouraged from asking friends for assistance, which may help in exhausting arguments with which they themselves are not very prepared to defend.

As the two debaters agree to more and more conclusions (be they changes in opinion, partial concessions, or simply agreements on terminology), over time their understanding of the topic should converge. Ideally, by the end of the debate they will agree. Realistically, they will leave with a more complete understanding of the other point of view, and understand where the unresolved issues of the debate truly lie.

Readers

Since the debate is ultimately for an audience, it should have something to offer the readers. A reader may largely identify with one of the debaters. In this case, he or she comes to challenge his or her views, as they would for any debate. Many readers, however, will come here because they are unsure of their stance on the topic. They've heard compelling arguments from both sides. Sometimes they've even had a chance to see both sides test each other's arguments in a debate. However, because of the multi-faceted nature of any topic, and the linear nature of normal debate, the issue is never really resolved. Well here, the readers, just as the debaters, can either come to a conclusion that satisfies them, or reach a much more complete understanding of one or both points of view than possible in standard debate.

Document Agreements Made

This is part of the first task of the mediator as mentioned above. Any time an agreement that can affect the future of the debate is made between the debaters, the mediator should document it in a clear way. The mediator will then enforce the agreement, by asking a debater to restate his/her point if he/she fails to abide by the agreement.

Again, a simple example of this is agreement on the definition of a terms. If both debaters agree on the same definition, and one debater uses the term to mean something else, the mediator should then step in and tell the debater to restate his or her point, using the term correctly (or just avoiding the use of the word).

This should remove a roadblock found in standard debate. Without such a formal process, debaters may forget an agreement they made, and end up wasting time debating in circles. Here, we stop old issues from resurfacing.

SubDebates

Identifying and spawning subdebates is the second task of the mediator. Rather than have a linear debate, arguments on the Argument Clinic are structured like trees.

In a normal debate, it is very difficult to keep track of all discussions going on, much less an exhaustive exploration of all arguments. With the ability to split parts of debates into subdebates, this becomes quite feasible.

Example:

Topic: What were the impact of Reagan's economic policies?

Conservative: Reagan's policies were good for the economy

Liberal: No they weren't, his tax cuts only helped the rich, and also caused a huge deficit.

Conservative: First off, Reagan's tax cuts boosted production, which actually increased tax revenue. The deficit was the Democrats' fault for spending. Secondly, the rich had a huge tax burden. Cutting taxes for them allowed them to make more purchases and investments, which employed many more people with lower incomes.

Liberal: First, "Trickle-down economics" is a proven myth. Secondly, don't blame the Democrats for deficit spending, Reagan signed off on it! Finally, your claim that tax cuts increased revenue is dubious.

Mediator: Ok, I think we can agree that we have three independent issues here. 1) Both of you agree that deficit spending happened and is bad for the economy. The only question implicating Reagan is, can he be blamed for it, or does the blame rest with the Democrats in congress?. 2) You both agree that Reagan took a so-called "trickle-down" approach to improving the economy. The question implicating him is, does it fail to help? 3) Again, we both agree that a deficit is bad for the economy, and that higher tax revenues offset a deficit. The question implicating him on tax revenue is, did his lowering taxes increase tax revenue?

--> split to "lower taxes, higher revenue" -->

--> split to "trickle-down economics" -->

--> split to "deficit spending" -->

...

Topic: Did Reagan's tax cuts increase tax revenue?

Conservative: Tax cuts allow for more money to be invested, thus increasing incomes, which increase tax revenue overall.

Liberal: The dollar amount for tax revenue went up dramatically, but it is much smaller when taking inflation into account...

...

Topic: Does so-called trickle-down economics work?

Liberal: Trickle-down economics is a failure. It failed in the late 1800s and it failed in the 1980s. If you legislate to benefit the rich, the poor will only benefit marginally. Instead, policies that help the poor directly must be implemented.

Conservative: You have to take into account how the economy works. You can't just legislate wellbeing for the poor. Somebody has to guide actual production of wealth. And if you choke them with taxes as they did in the late 70s, they will be less able to produce, which isn't good for anybody.

...

Topic: Does Reagan deserve blame for deficit spending?

Conservative: Reagan only got through what he could get away with, given his opposition in congress. He was willing to accept deficit spending in order to pass much needed tax cuts.

Liberal: That's an awful compromise. The long-term damage to the economy wasn't worth it.

...

Winners and Losers

As stated above, the aim of this site is to find the truth. This means that a debate here won't have a winner and a loser. Televised debates especially result in the audience making a largely subjective comparison of the cases made by the debaters, and comparing the debaters themselves, including their charisma. It's often interesting, entertaining, and insightful, but I believe it isn't as useful for determining the truth as a systematic method such as this one.

Thus, as debates are mediated here, the focus will be on clarifying points of view, agreements, disagreements, what we've determined so far, etc. Progress won't be seen as one debater being better than the other, but rather as debaters agreeing more and more. It is more of a collaboration between the debaters and the mediator than a competition.

Conclusions

It would be very ambitious to presume that any major issues could actually be fully resolved here. Perhaps one or two. However, what is expected more regularly is a conditional resolution. Both debaters can conclude that belief in A makes sense given belief in B.

One clear (though not particularly insightful) example is, a pro-life debater and a pro-choice opponent might both be able to agree to the following:

If one believes that a fetus is in every way a human being, he/she should consider abortion to be murder. If one believes that a fetus is in no way a human being, he/she should have no moral qualms about abortion.

It may seem like such an incomplete resolution is a pointless place to end a debate, but if you think about it, it saves a lot of time in future debates. Readers who are discussing an issue amongst themselves can avoid taking the time reaching the same conclusion, and focus on taking the argument further. And, perhaps, one day they could debate the topic again on this site, and demonstrate their findings here.

Real-Life Example

The best real-life example on the site, at the time of this writing, is the drug legalization debate. It didn't go very long, but it went long enough to demonstrate how subdebates work.