I certainly take you seriously, Elliot. However, I am strapped for time so I have not been able to review your video or more of your introductory material on debate trees. I’m stll leaning towards using a simpler set of nodes to describe an argument, and am hoping to find a basic graphical step-by-step of an actual example to let me step through your model in my mind, and compare what you do with what I would otherwise do.
EDIT: Oh, my informal debate policy at this point is to engage if I otherwise have resources to do so and the person is being a scout about an interesting topic (using Galef’s scout and soldier model). If they are being a soldier, I’ll supply them information if that’s in my interest. If they’re being manipulative instead of a scout or soldier, I might still supply them information but I don’t consider myself in an actual debate. At most, I’ll spend a little time clarifying my position (to avoid intentional misinterpretations when that’s feasible) then move on.
I partition behaviors into manipulative and truth-building, and partition truth-building behaviors into scout and soldier behaviors. By “behavior” I mean external behaviors that indicate internal processing indicative of scout or soldier mindset. I cannot actually debate someone being manipulative. Obviously, if my behavior is manipulative, then it doesn’t qualify as genuine debate either.
I certainly take you seriously, Elliot. However, I am strapped for time so I have not been able to review your video or more of your introductory material on debate trees. I’m stll leaning towards using a simpler set of nodes to describe an argument, and am hoping to find a basic graphical step-by-step of an actual example to let me step through your model in my mind, and compare what you do with what I would otherwise do.
EDIT: Oh, my informal debate policy at this point is to engage if I otherwise have resources to do so and the person is being a scout about an interesting topic (using Galef’s scout and soldier model). If they are being a soldier, I’ll supply them information if that’s in my interest. If they’re being manipulative instead of a scout or soldier, I might still supply them information but I don’t consider myself in an actual debate. At most, I’ll spend a little time clarifying my position (to avoid intentional misinterpretations when that’s feasible) then move on. I partition behaviors into manipulative and truth-building, and partition truth-building behaviors into scout and soldier behaviors. By “behavior” I mean external behaviors that indicate internal processing indicative of scout or soldier mindset. I cannot actually debate someone being manipulative. Obviously, if my behavior is manipulative, then it doesn’t qualify as genuine debate either.