open politics argument

Many open politics argument standards require comparison and debate.

The next LivingPlatform.CA web will continue to rely on TIPAESA simply because so much is in this format. But the next Living Platform web must help set some standards for the next open politics web. As of 2005-04, the open politics web consists only of locally hosted pages under administrator guidelines that are fairly uniform for at least a few types of pages. An open politics search engine is the best next step to this, as prototyped on the next open politics toolbar.

Any user would find it much easier to review debates structured in a common format. OpenPolitcs.ca needs to encourage the evolution of such a formatting, and may want to improve the tikiwiki markup language to make it more convient to create IPA pages.

Using decision assisting software

A short list of web based services providing decision assisting software include debatepoint.com, TIPAESA, Hansard and other ways if there are not too many. It's quite feasible but extraordinarily expensive to track this sort of thign.

casual arguments

Most people frequently engage in casual arguments - in meetings, blogs, newsgroups, web threads or mailing lists.

Though it is not a reccomended way to build an issue briefing, there will be many cases where users will want to import casual arguments - whose unstructured form yet contains valuable insights. Openpolitics should provide a pathway to do this, and even reward posters of the best casual arguments. It may be a good way to get started on an issue.

Given arguments in free-floating form, one might find commit verbs, time intervals, offers, requests, and even scope subject by jurisdiction and "who's we".

To find important political decisions consider all human command verbs (like oh say "invade") as a starting point. This goes a long way towards making sense of verbs and getting them into a single massive structure comparable to the GFDL corpus namespace. All organized hopefully by REST protocols and naming conventions for international simultaneous policy at least in English, wherever possible.

debate trees

"The structure of this debate looks like a tree of arguments, where the moderation trickles up to the main point... a single support or oppose stance for the particular point being debated."

In debatepoint terms, to "formalize consensus over different issues" is just a more general way of saying ratify planks in a party platform. "The resulting consensus is only as valid as the user's arguments and moderation that form it" obviously so the emphasis should be on who is committing - in our case the LP client.

Also in debatepoint, "stances" are "determined based on moderated arguments." In theory. In fact, stances are just chosen based on whatever instinct. One can choose to recognize a position as being a "stance", as in amartial art where there are also debates re "hard style" with "fixed stance" vs. styles without. Flexibility seems desirable to the politician but as voters we want more certainty: issues equal something when we vote:

There is thus at least a stance per party taken during elections. Some people don't like that either! But it is politics as usual and especially Canadian politics as usual with so many parties.

"Individual arguments may be debated as if they were the main topic." This just means they are becoming issues in themselves - but really an argument ought to rely on some more solid evidence not just opinions. So there are problems with this structure as it can lead to endless regress very easily which TIPAESA cuts off. Of course issues can have sub-issues, arguments can have sub-arguments, sources like Murdoch can have sub-sources like newspapers can have sub-sources like the editorial page.


Presumably a position, evidence and authority are objectively determined, as they are in due process or anything judicial. Stick to T__P_E_A perhaps for the judicial stuff.

issues and arguments are recursive

"Moderation is on an argument's relevance to it's immediate parent." Which is subjective potentially. Where are the factions? But you need something like this to discipline argument vs. sub-argument. The main difference is assuming that issue vs. sub-issue is exactly like argument vs. sub-argument. Which it might be in some ways structurally, but, probably not in any real due process.