Structured debate

About

Structured debate is a technique for resolving factual disputes by breaking down the evidence and logic regarding a stated conclusion into simple verifiable statements of fact (assertions, claims).

Details

• The basic structure is a tree.
• Every twig on the tree should be an assertion which can be objectively falsified.
• Every twig's sub-branch contains zero or more additional assertions which either 🡅support, 🡇contradict, or 🛈inform the parent-assertion.
  • "🛈Information" points aren't part of the formal process, but are available for use when it's not clear how a point might fit in later. I consider them as a kind of social lubricant. They may later be moved and/or reassigned as support or countering points.

Rules

1. Each branch starts with a conclusion.

2. Any statement is considered true unless countered by another true statement.

3. The truth-determination of any statement is always subject to change as new evidence is added.

Note that the state of any conclusion may be affected by the state of any descendant-point, no matter how deeply nested. This is the place where software mediation would be most helpful: to keep track of the logic – especially when counterpoints are themselves countered, as each countering reverses the truth-state of the parent.

Note: I haven't yet decided what happens when a statement has both supporting and countering subordinate statements that are true. (This situation has not come up, but seems likely to occur when more than one person is adding arguments.)

Formatting

I'm using templates to automate and regularize the appearance of the different conditions which can apply.

• ✔ A "true" statement has not been countered by any subordinate points that are true.
  • It may or may not also have supporting points.
• 🗶 A "false" statement has been countered by at least one true subordinate statement.

Templates

Example usage:

source wikicode	result
<div style="font-size: 16pt;"> {{tree|{{arg/false|We are having a debate.}}| :{{tree|{{arg/info}} We are defining "debate" in a [[structured debate|particular way]] here.| ::{{tree|{{arg/info}} Really, we are.| :::{{tree/line|There's really nothing more to say about it.}} }} }} }} </div>	🗶 We are having a debate. 🛈 We are defining "debate" in a particular way here. 🛈 Really, we are. 🞛 There's really nothing more to say about it.

Vocabulary

• Synonyms (more or less):
  • "statement of fact", "assertion", "claim", "point"
  • "counter", "contradict"

term	meaning
conclusion	any assertion with one or more subpoints. This also refers to root assertions before any arguments have been presented, because we presume there will soon be some (if there are no arguments, it's not a debate).
subpoint	a subordinate assertion (aka "underneath" another assertion) Each subpoint must 🡅support, 🡇counter, or 🛈inform its parent.
argument	evidence and the logic connecting it with a conclusion

See Also

There is more about this on Issuepedia (2026-04-28: site barely usable due to server overload).