What kind of data structuring is conducive to healthy debate? I was just thinking, if we as humans want to sort out our differences of opinion on, say, politics or religion, what would be a good means to debate such a concept while at the same time make everyone feel they're on board?

Most sites on such things are either:


Biased or unbiased (but usually persuasive) writings or studies that are written by a single individual or group (one way communication)
Organised Q&amp;A, forums, expert's opinion, etc. (two way communication, but often between those who have a good understanding and those who do not)
Unorganised and random chatting between fellow users (one to one communication, or group chatting within a small group/anonymous users)


Has there been any research or thought given to the idea of a collective idea generating mechanism, where everybody provides their inputs, and is more likely to accept the results of such a debate (if results do come up)?



Maybe a huge online wiki organised as a nodal network, where claims are supported or questioned. Evidence is put up on both sides, and further threads can be opened to debate the validity of given evidence. Bigger claims are made based on the validity of smaller claims, etc. etc. (But that's just my thoughts)
I've been fascinated by this question for years, but unfortunately don't have a conclusive answer. So instead, I'll make an ad-hoc list of the things I've found/explored about this topic and hopefully this will give you a starting point until someone else can create a better answer with better references.



My current approach to this is MindMaps, which is similar to nodal network you propose. I've used Mindmaps in various scenarios, including trying to determine an appropriate scope for this site. However, I know of no formal study of this format of discussion and if it's better than linear forms of discussion as supported by forums.

Other models include Federated Wikis, which seems closer to your idea of an interconnected Wiki for discussion. However, these seems more targeted to spontaneous cross-fertilization of ideas, rather than debate. This is a new platform, so it's not surprising that there has been no formal study of the ideas that culminate from this form of digital interaction.

In terms of the content of documents, Bret Viktor has been investigating this and is trying to create a paradigm of Explorable Explorations. Explorable Explanations rely on manipulable data-driven proofs rather than rhetoric based argumentation to prove their point. See the link for further examples. There is a collection of Explorable Explanations available online, which address a variety of topics, including CBT. However, I know of no evidence that these forms of explanations are more effective than traditional narrative-driven explanations.

Finally, to unify all of these approaches philosophically, Joe Edelman is putting forth a philosophy which dictates that shared values are the root of empathy and understanding. I know of no system that implements this philosophy of finding common values between participants, but it does seem like a useful framework to guide design.



That's all I've found so far. I know lots of people doing research in Human Computer Interaction, but I've seen very little work in the domain of consensus building. I really hope further posters can provide superior references.