[P2P-F] The Universal Debating Project.

Tue Apr 12 19:50:21 CEST 2011

Hi Robert,

feel free to create an entry on this for the wiki,

however, though I forgot the name, it seems to me that similar initiatives
already exists, even if they may differ in details with what you are
proposing,

michel

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:03 PM, robert searle <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
> The Universal Debating Project is an extremely ambitious proposal for an
> on-going programme in which "all", or most arguments for, or against any
> topic of human knowledge, or information could be presented in a clear form.
> In other words, an on-line "encyclopedia" for pros, and cons in any debate
> which could be continually up-dated on the internet. It would adopt the p2p
> approach, and hence, be an Open Source of data emanating from laymen,
> experts, ngos, scholarly papers, popular articles, documentaries, et al.
>
> Obviously, Wikipedia articles do present arguments for, and against
> particular subjects. But how "complete,"  and how unbiased are they?
> Moreover, they deal mainly with major aruguments, and "minor" arguments
> maybe excluded at times. In effect, what is needed is the most objective
> presentation of possible pros, and cons on most, if not "all" kinds of human
> knowledge, and "controversy". The Universal Debating Project should be
> publicly seen as being a highly reliable, and a credible central global
> source of such data.
>
>
> The Problem of Complexity.
>
>
> As the world becomes increasingly complex it becomes more, and more vital
> to....
>
> a) ...reduce most, if not "all" information into clear, and manageable
> levels of data...ideally using the least number of words..
>
> b) ...reduce "all" arguments for, and against in a lucid manner....again
> ideally using the least number of words...
>
> Apart from Wikipedia mentioned earlier there are ofcourse on the internet
> any number of forums, and discussion groups.These are fine as far as they
> go. But as said before how complete are their arguments for, and against a
> certain topics? This is where the Universal Debating Project becomes
> all-important.
>
>
>
> Basic Systemization of Presentation on the Universal Debating Project.
>
>
> The presentation of data on various subjects should be simple. It could be
> like "Pros, and Cons, a Debaters Handbook" edited by Trevor Sather which
> went through a number of editions since 1896. Here, two columns are
> presented, one of which is for pro arguments, and the other for con
> arguments. Each entry is numbered, and should be lucid, and precise
> .....ideally once again using the least number of words possible to present
> a case.
>
> If the Universal Debating Project were ever set up its initial concern
> would be with major issues notably social matters, politics, and cllimate
> change.Also, it should be added that it is as yet unclear how such a
> proposal could be funded. It could use the Wikipedia model, or maybe not.
>
>
> Two Links.
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
>
> This link below deals with rationality, and it too could be reduced to a
> pro, and con presentation so that an informed decision-making process could
> be undertaken by the individual..
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110413/3011548f/attachment.htm 