Most active channels

Most discussed users

Most supported premises

Argüman Needs A Serious Redesign/Rethink

Logical arguments and critical thinking are NOT generally constructed using "But", "Because", and "However" as objections, reasons or proof, or additional situations.
14 supporter.

Argüman Needs A Serious Redesign/Rethink

The site should cater most to the power users, the ones who actually know this stuff, enjoy it, and delve deep into it. The general user will then follow from there.
10 supporter.

Argüman Needs A Serious Redesign/Rethink

Examples are not formally included in the current Arguman structure and so are often included as premises, rather than in support of premises. There needs to be a better way to include examples and/or evidence as things that support premises - not AS premises themselves.
9 supporter.

Argüman Needs A Serious Redesign/Rethink

Brevity is the soul of wit. I do think that Premises and Conclusions may benefit from the 300 character limit. But not comments, examples, supporting information, etc.
5 supporter.

Argüman Needs A Serious Redesign/Rethink

This is a great idea and has a shitload of potential. But needs to be done better than this.
4 supporter.

Argüman Needs A Serious Redesign/Rethink

Even so, voting can be informative, interesting, meaningful, and, uh, FUN.
4 supporter.
1 fallacy report.
Appeal To Belief

Argüman Needs A Serious Redesign/Rethink

Arguments should be treated like Wikipedia articles. They need to be improved over time by the community, not just added to. This can be accomplished with the help of a power-user/editor community akin to Wikipedia's.
4 supporter.

Argüman Needs A Serious Redesign/Rethink

Well, for starters, comments like yours need to be separated from Premises altogether. Also, "But" and "However" shouldn't even be called premises - they are objections, or at least I think that's how they're supposed to be used. I have a structure in mind, and from there, the words would follow :)
4 supporter.

Argüman Needs A Serious Redesign/Rethink

Voting shouldn't determine the truth. This community isn't about voting who is right, it's about developing sound argumentation.
3 supporter.

Argüman Needs A Serious Redesign/Rethink

Yes, the power user / editor team would have a modus operandi that would be first defined and then refined. But I think that Wikipedia editors, for instance, do more than verify sources. Maybe that is their general MO, but in doing so they 'create knowledge' in deciding what is knowledgeable.
2 supporter.