Explanatory Example Debate v0.1

1. Persistent in-context-answers.
   This is an answer to statement a14 (first entry of the numbered list of features). This answer itself is also a contribution . Because it refers to statement a14 its contribution key is a14b . This contribution consequently also consists of referenceable and answerable statements (keys:

   By the way: you can see the key of each statement by hovering over it with the mouse. Clicking or tapping on a statement displays its full URL (including a copy-button).

   a14b1 , a14b2 etc).

   Note that:

   • Each answer-contribution is displayed directly below the statement to which it refers. Thus, "persistent in-context-answers" means: Every single statement is tied to its context, both by its key and by its display location. To improve oversight and clearness different answer-levels can be hidden or unhidden by users.
   • Each answer contribution is distinguished by color and indentation from the text of the surrounding contribution.
   • In the current version only two parties of a debate are supported:

     Example

     This limitation to two parties (or users) might seem limited but it already allows the following hypothetical debate:

     • Party P1 starts with an initial contribution (with contribution key a ). The respective statements are labeled a1 , a2 , etc.
     • Party P2 does not agree with several points. They answer the seventh statement with a contribution (→ key a7b ) and the tenth statement with another contribution a10b . The statements of these contributions then have the keys: a7b1 , . . . and a10b1 , . . . , respectively. Note that contribution keys end with a letter while statement keys end with a number.
     • Now, party P1 wants to point out a misunderstanding and creates contribution a7b4a : This contribution is associated to statement 4 of a7b .

     Each answer-contribution is displayed directly below the statement to which it refers. To improve oversight and clearness different answer-levels can be hidden or unhidden by users.

     Summary

     This approach allows for a very granular discussions where specific points can be addressed very precisely. If necessary a deep back-and-forth discussions can evolve which allows to advance to the root causes of disagreement and potentially generate new insights. At the same time the overall context is always maintained . Thus, ripping quotes out of context is impossible and shifting the topic . In addition, due to the availability of the statement keys it is much more feasible to give precise references than in classical online-discussions.
     Party (a) on the "Pro"-side (w.r.t. the initial contribution) and Party (b) on the "Contra"-side (w.r.t. the initial contribution). Each party is associated with a single user account.
   • Contributions can be styled using Markdown syntax.
     This is a simple language to influence text formatting by adding some special characters, e.g. **bold** results in bold face etc. For more information on Markdown see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown .

   ---

   Now it is probably time to read the other answers:

   • More details about persistent in-context answers (click the highlighted statements in this contribution).
   • An explanation what "Provable integrity of content data" means (click on statement a15 below. )
2. Provable integrity of content data.

   Motivation

   As all kinds of infrastructure a discussion platform is operated and controlled by humans. In truly controversial discussions about a polarizing topic there might be the risk that the operator of the discussion platform interferes in the content, e.g. by deletion or manipulation. Another risk is that, e.g. after an argument turned out to be wrong, the platform is falsely accused of manipulation.

   Realization

   The approach of Fair Debate counters both risks by outsourcing the storage of the content to public git hosting services such as GitHub: Each contribution is stored in a plain text file and committed to a repo. When displaying the current state of the debate the platform does not load the content from a local database. This would be intransparent and allow for undetectable manipulation. Instead the displayed contents are loaded from the public git repos of the participants*. Those repos contain the whole change-history and their consistency is ensured by cryptographic hashes. Thus, any manipulation but also any false accusation of manipulation is easily detectable.