A debateMap is a group of (common) arguments and rebuttals, that is refined and organized. (Lumenos had in mind to do this in a wiki, but no one really does it.) If something is learned that makes the older information, obsolete, the obsolete comments are replaced with the updated info. Statements which appear to be off-topic may be moved to a different part of the map. The format a debateMap is not entirely decided. Here are some options:
- Take a "debate" that is in a MediaWiki talkpage format and refactor it by changing or deleting arguments if one of the "debaters" changes their mind or finds new evidence to support their point. This has the disadvantage that the comments are no longer in chronological order. Someone looking for the latest updates may find it difficult to use the history functions to see what has been updated. This is not much different than a wiki article.
- Take two wiki articles which are arguing opposite positions and merge the content into one article.
The organization method may include the common MediaWiki talk page format, outlines, flow charts, tables, or whatever means is most suitable to the goal of making the various arguments and rebuttals, easiest to navigate and understand. In time the "debate" may look more like a descriptive "article" rather than a prescriptive essay.
There are a few forms:
- The final editing of a sympathetic debate map is done by only one side in the debate, although anyone may collaborate to form it.
- A multiview debate map (MDM) is the ultimate goal of a true wikibrawl, in the hitherto tradition of lumenism (-; following the lumenikilu policy of multiple points of view (as opposed to a neutral point of view or a sympathetic point of view). To be a true multiview debate map, all sides must agree that the debate map accurately represents their point of view, and no point of view caries undue weight, in comparison to the others.
Why aren't there more debateMaps
There are "debateMaps" wherever arguments are contrasted. But maybe one problem is that there is not much consensus about what the notable (wrong) arguments are. As this consensus is reached people become persuaded on some points and drop the counterarguments. There probably isn't much consensus on the losing side of an argument. Debate doesn't lend itself to a permanent reference guide.
Reddit for debate
Reddit works well for debates. There is no limit to how deep threads can go. The importance/placement of arguments/statements is chosen by up-voting or down-voting and (much to the relief of the other editors, every editor can only edit their own comments.