AugmentedArgument

An AugmentedArgument is a form of debate.


When arguments of a standard form have appeared so many times before, it is no longer necessary to go to have the same argument over and over again, and suffer the miscommunications and misinterpretations over and over again. Once true differences have been identified, they can be codified and ritualized, to be referred to with LinkLanguage.

Consider the following augmented argument:

      Joe: "Let's use the GFDL!"
      Bayle: "Hey! Have you heard of the (WikiLegal link:) CopyleftInteroperabilityProblem?"
      Joe reads the text.
      Joe: "Ah! I see! So, then, I agree with the ideas behind (WikiLegal link:)
      StaticMultipleCopyleftLicensing. In particular, (WikiLegal link:) CreativeCommonsShareAlike and the
      (WikiLegal link:) GnuFdl."
      Bayle: "Not (WikiLegal link:) BoardGovernedMultipleCopyleftLicensing?"
      Joe: "No, because I (WikiLegal link:) DontTrustBoards."
      Bayle: "Oh, okay. All right. I guess static's okay with me, though I worry about (WikiLegal link:)
      FlawsInStaticMultipleCopyleftLicensing."
      Joe: "So, you'll contribute here?"
      Bayle: "Yeah, sure, what the hell."
      Lion: "What?!? Static multiple-copylefts?! Rediculous! (WikiLegal link:) I can't contribute here!
      (WikiLegal link:) MyWordsAreForever !" 

Were the linked pages to actually exist, the argument would be an AugmentedArgument. The use of LinkLanguage makes this an AugmentedArgument.

Note that very little reasoning is going on; This is because the (very complex!) reasoning itself is found within the linked pages, on a WikiDebateBase.

The example argument above is a relatively simple case, because participants share very similar values, and there are only so many ways that these near-mathematical entities can be stretched. In cases of greater ambiguity, or greater distance between values of participants, the advantage of augmentation is still present, but far lesser.

AugmentedArgument and Debate

Wiki are sprouting up all over the place, and we'll soon see a MassCoverageByWiki. DeepDisagreements will likely prevent all ideas on a given topic to be integrated into a single wiki - it's likely you'll get different communities with different values (see IntegrationAndIdentity.) If these communities interact enough, they'll come to use their wiki as WikiDebateBases?.

Importance of Shared Space

If the links point to the same space that the debate occurs in (generally a DebateWiki), they will be more persuasive - because you are showing that you took the effort to read the opinions of the community, and understands them, and that you're trying to avoid redundance.

It seems to me that providing "go read this and get wise" links on forums or irc can be mildly offending - because a LinkLanguage is not a part of the community (though it can happen that a debating community is built around a static site - in which case links to that site may make sense).

If this is used for debate, it is important that both sides somehow share the same link language.

See also

Discussion moved from IntegrationAndIdentity

(on IntegrationAndIdentity: )

:"This results in wiki of varying perspectives, and possibly "debate" wiki in the future, where people go to debate perspectives, calling upon the wiki of their home perspective. As points are identified and people convinced of ideas in the debate wiki, they can "come home" to their home wiki, and convert the remainder of their people into the new synthesis."

Woah.. cool idea! This really evokes the PatternLanguage nature of wiki.. in order to debate you go to a neutral ground, but call upon the language of the wiki that you come from in order to succinctly make your point.


see: DebateWiki

Discussion

It seems to me that providing "go read this and get wise" links on forums or irc can be mildly offending - because a LinkLanguage is not a part of the community (though it can happen that a debating community is built around a static site - in which case links to that site may make sense).
If this is used for debate, it is important that both sides somehow share the same link language.

I agree with the first idea, the conclusion I think is not quite right.

If you were to boldly trounce into an IRC forum, and proclaim, "Citizens of IRC; I tell ye: Get wisdom! Study this page!" …then, that would, obviously, be rude.

However, if you use LinkLanguage in your casual language, or, if you're explaining something, and use LinkLanguage, and a bot posts the URL behind it automatically- I don't think that's rude.

When you're explaining an idea on IRC, it's frequently VERY helpful for the person trying to understand what you mean, to have a URL handy. You can only talk so fast in IRC, but you can skim web pages and diagrams very fast. You can also use the URLs to look up the ideas, later.

Bringing new ideas into a community, or just even being clear on what, more precicely, you mean (something you get with LinkLanguage,) are all good things.

Whether they are perceived as rude or not, I think, is up to the way the LinkLanguage is used.

If you are haughty about it, it will be rude. If you are gentle with it, it is helpful and informative.

In a non-interactive debate/conversation, online, the advantage of the AugmentedArgument is even greater: a person has time to read what you are really thinking. You can diffuse many arguments over misunderstandings before there is even response.

So, I disagree strongly.

I think a community that has the power (i.e., the software support) will end up forming it's own LinkLanguage, as well as borrowing it from other communities (NearLink.) But, ideas come from other places, first.

Assuming you agree with me: I'm not sure how to work this into the article.

Perhaps we should add a section at the end that says: "It's good to be sensitive to another community. Try and explain ideas in the terms they already know, as well as using LinkLanguage. The two can complement one another." More than just that, but basically- that's the basic idea. Sensitivity to the languages and ideas of multiple communities.

There are deeper issues where the conflicting LinkLanguage of two different communities collide. Fortunately, I believe LinkLanguage helps here: Because it is an argument router, it should be (in theory; we'll have to wait and see to see it work in practice) easier to identify the original source(s) of disagreement. There is implicit information, which can make it harder to identify that original source.

It's not important that it be a machine, though. Ideas live in our heads, after all. If you notice a systematic bent, you can just call it a name, search for it in the page database, if it's not there, bring it up.

Define external redirect: WikiDebateBases

Languages: