Abstract:
The patent describes and claims methods and systems for hosting and administering a forum for adversarial discussion. The invention consists of the underlying concepts, rules, and features of a distributed software program for conducting online debates. These concepts, rules, and features create a forum and an online tool for enforcing focused, rational debate. Rules are enforced that prevent digression, noise over content, and non-substantive, unproductive participation. In one embodiment, the method of hosting a debate includes the step of accepting a first statement from a topic author. By submitting the first statement, the topic author is creating a topic structure, which represents the basis for a debate on a particular topic. The topic author adds statements to the topic structure that can support the first statement and can proceed to build the topic structure which is comprised of debate structures containing specific statements and related data, such as critiques, rebuttals, a revision history, and scores. Other debate participants can react to the statements in a topic structure by submitting critiques of statements and can rank statements and rebuttals. A topic structure is manifested by at least two visual components: a statement map and a topic layout. These features of the present invention provide a context for the debate, whereby the ability to revise statements, critiques and rebuttals prevents digression allows for a rational debate in a controlled forum.

Description:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     1. Field of the Invention 
     The present invention relates to software for implementing structures and methods of conducting debates and adversarial discussion among participants over a computer network. Specifically, it relates to software for enabling an efficient structure for online communication that promotes focused, time-saving, and rational discussions. 
     2. Discussion of Related Art 
     Although the number of present Internet and computer network applications and forums for conducting debates and adversarial discussions via electronic communication over a computer network is vast they have significant drawbacks. 
     Despite the vast increase in online communication and the growing prevalence of online debates and adversarial discussions, the quality of such discussions and debate has not improved. Free-form discussion methods such as e-mail, instant messaging, discussion-groups, and “chat rooms,” as well as live conversation or verbal argumentation, all suffer from weaknesses that make it difficult to foster rational and structured debate among participants because of their free form nature. 
     Online discussions began with Usenet Newsgroups, CompuServe Forums, and early e-mail which catered to a small minority of technical users. Over the past decade, these tools have grown and presently have millions of users who regularly discuss a wide range of topics, while e-mail, also used to discuss and debate issues, has become the single most widespread tool on the Internet. However, both modes of communication lack structure, have low content-to-noise ratios, and suffer from other drawbacks. 
     With online discussions, a typical discussion begins when one individual makes one or a series of points or statements which initiates a dialogue. Individuals responding to these points do so in any manner they wish. As a result current methods start with an argument which stems outwards in many directions. This outward meandering approach to responding to a point frequently results in the original point and its context getting lost while individuals pursue fragments of the original issue. It is only with considerable effort that both participants and observers can be mindful of all of the responses and points made and how they relate to the main argument. Given that online discussions can take place over significant periods of time, the cognitive overload required of the participants and observers (hereinafter “users”) often results in off-topic discussions because users fail to recall the original context. 
     Another problem arises from the fact that users often conflate an assumption—a belief that one accepts as true without support—and inferences and conclusions that they make from that assumption. This often inadvertent mixing of two different types of beliefs suggests implied support for an assumption that does not exist. Including hidden assumptions often dilutes a rigorous and disciplined debate or any type of rational dialogue and all assumptions should be distinguished from inferences, conclusions, and so on. 
     Another issue with traditional, free-form methods such as e-mail and discussion groups is that although communication within an adversarial discussion or debate often consists of two distinct phases, this distinction is lost or blurred with e-mail and discussion groups. The first phase consists of the back-and-forth between users where each is simply trying to understand what the others are trying to say or what their point is. The second phase is the distillation of what the true disagreement is—the “Aha!” moment—when two or more users realize what their differences really are. While the ‘back-and-forth’ phase is essential to reaching the “Aha!” moment, it is only the true disagreement that is fundamental to the adversarial discussion or debate. With present communication tools, forums, and applications there is no distinction between these two phases. The true point of disagreement is buried amid excessive noise leading to a high noise-to-content ratio. 
     Because of the unstructured, free-form characteristic of present tools for adversarial discussion, a frequent problem is digression, both intentional and unintentional, from the main point. Unintentional digression is expected within a context-free method given that a free-form structure allows users to unintentionally digress. In contrast, intentional digression often occurs in response to valid criticism of a position and is typically an attempt to distract other users from evaluating such criticism and to bury it amid other less insightful or relevant statements. Both forms of digression increase the cognitive load of users attempting to ascertain the relevant parts of a debate and are fundamentally detrimental to understanding, participating, and benefiting from an adversarial discussion of a topic. 
     Another drawback of present tools and forums stems from human nature&#39;s predisposition to try and ‘get the last word’ in a debate or discussion. As the phrase implies, ‘getting the last word’ means that a user or speaker is the last one to be heard in an argument. Present tools encourage this behavior which is a strong motivating factor to continue an argument beyond the point where the discussion is meaningful and worthwhile, exacerbating all the drawbacks described above. Furthermore, present tools by their very nature give a user with the highest number of statements or posts to a discussion a distinct advantage, allowing essentially a filibuster of a critique. 
     It is worth noting that the related field of Collaborative Argumentation generally assumes a cooperation of participants seeking a common goal and is not intended to foster adversarial discussion. Collaborative Argumentation methods result in enormous tree structures with the disadvantages described above. When a discussion is adversarial instead of cooperative then these tree structures become even more unwieldy due to the increased back-and-forth discussion among users who do not agree. This increases the cognitive loads on users as they try to keep the most relevant information in mind while attempting to block out the noise. 
     Thus, there is a need for an application and tool for conducting, facilitating and fostering rational and focused adversarial discussions. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     Additional features and advantages of the invention will be set forth in the description which follows, and in part will be obvious from the description, or may be learned by practice of the invention. The features and advantages of the invention may be realized and obtained by means of the methods and configurations particularly pointed out in the appended claims. These and other features of the present invention will become more fully apparent from the following description and appended claims, or may be learned by the practice of the invention as set forth herein. 
     Method and systems for hosting and administering a forum for adversarial discussion over a computer network are described. In one aspect of the invention, a method of hosting an adversarial discussion, such as a debate, includes the step of accepting a first statement from a topic author. By submitting the first statement which can be an assumption or a conclusion, the topic author is creating a topic structure, which represents the basis for a discussion on a particular topic. The topic author adds statements to the topic structure that can support the first statement and can proceed to build the topic structure which is comprised of debate structures containing specific statements and related data, such as critiques, rebuttals, a revision history, and scores. Other discussion participants can react to the statements in a topic structure by submitting critiques of statements and can score statements, rebuttals, and other critiques that they did not author. A ranking results through the accumulation of scores or votes from many users. Statements, critiques, rebuttals, and other facets of a topic structure can be changed using various functional modules of the online debate application software of the present invention. A topic structure is manifested to the topic author and participants by at least two visual components: a statement map and a topic layout. In sum, the invention is the combination of a deductive structure and the ability to revise statements, critiques and rebuttals, referred to as revisioning. The deductive structure is comprised of one or more assumptions and conclusions. The revisioning aspect of the invention is comprised of critiques, rebuttals, a history of critiques and rebuttals, and modifications to the topic statements themselves. This aspect prevents digression and keeps the argument focused on the deductive structure. It creates a context that fosters users to look inward at the point of the argument and prevents the outward flow of the deductive structure. The structure is the context in which users may only revise critiques which affords an inward focus at the argument and prevents the outward flow of information. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       In order to describe the manner in which the invention can be implemented, a more particular description of the invention briefly described above is provided by reference to specific embodiments illustrated in the appended drawings. Understanding that these drawings depict only typical embodiments of the invention and therefore are not to be considered limiting of its scope, the invention will be described and explained with additional specificity and detail through the use of the accompanying drawings in which: 
         FIG. 1 . is a diagram showing a configuration of hardware components for enabling an online debate application tool and forum of the present invention; 
         FIG. 2  is a block diagram of some of the functional components of debate application software in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention; 
         FIG. 3  is a diagram of statements that can be made in a debate and how they are presented to a user as a topic layout in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention; 
         FIG. 4  is a block diagram of a topic structure in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention; 
         FIG. 5  is a block diagram of a debate structure in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention; and 
         FIG. 6  is a block diagram of a statement map in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
     Various embodiments of the invention are discussed in detail below. While specific implementations are discussed, it should be understood that this is done for illustration purposes only. A person skilled in the relevant art will recognize that other methods, structures, and configurations may be used without parting from the spirit and scope of the invention. 
       FIG. 1  is a diagram of a configuration of hardware components for enabling an online debate application tool and forum of the present invention. A computer network  100 , for example, the Internet, a VPN, an Ethernet network, and so on, connects an application server  102  to a plurality of various client computing devices. If computer network  100  is the Internet, there is also a Web server (not shown). Examples of client computer devices shown in  FIG. 1  include desktop computers  104  and  110 , laptop computer  108 , a computer network-enabled cell phone  106 , and a computer network-enabled hand-held device  112 . 
     In a preferred embodiment, computer network  100  is the Internet and the devices are generally client desktop and laptop computers. However, other types of Internet-enabled devices can be utilized for executing the online debate application tool of the present invention. Private networks, such as those used in classrooms, private entities, government organizations, and home/residential networks, can also be used as a data transmission means for implementing the online debate application tool of the present invention. 
     Application server  102  contains online debate application software which implements the online debate/adversarial discussion tool of the present invention. In a preferred embodiment, no software or applications are downloaded to client computing devices. In another preferred embodiment, software can be downloaded onto the client devices for enhanced functionality of the online debate application software. 
       FIG. 2  is a block diagram of some of the functional components of debate application software  202  in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. In a preferred embodiment, application software  202  resides and executes on application server  102  and the various client devices. Application software  202  contains the following components: topic addition/revision module  40 , rebuttal addition/revision module  42 , critique addition/revision module  41 , scoring module  45 , topic structure  70 , statement map creation module  44 , and display module  60 . The process generally begins with a user making a point and then expecting to defend it. The user makes a single statement or point, which can be an ASSUMPTION or an eventual CONCLUSION, that she wishes to defend thereby creating a topic structure  70 . No other users of the online debate application will see the topic until the topic author decides to publish topic structure  70 . 
       FIG. 3  is a diagram of statements that can be made in a debate and how they are presented to a user as a topic layout in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. Shown are a series of ASSUMPTIONS # 1 , # 2 , # 3 , and # 4 , and a series of CONCLUSIONS # 1  and # 2 . The process starts with a user making a statement, e.g., “The death penalty is unconstitutional.” This statement is automatically labeled as an ASSUMPTION, e.g., “ASSUMPTION # 1 ”, because by default it has no supporting statements. By making this statement, the user is starting to create a topic structure  70  which will be displayed as topic layout  91  shown in  FIG. 3 . The same user, the “topic author,” can make any number of statements for topic structure  70 . If the topic author wants to support ASSUMPTION # 1 , she can make supporting statements, e.g., “the death penalty amounts to cruel and unusual punishment” and “the vast majority of countries in the world consider the death penalty to be inhumane,” thereby establishing a supporting relationship between these statements and the first that changes the first statement from an ASSUMPTION to a CONCLUSION. An ASSUMPTION statement is converted to a CONCLUSION statement when it has another statement (either ASSUMPTION or CONCLUSION) supporting it. For example, CONCLUSION # 2  in  FIG. 3  is a statement that is supported by an ASSUMPTION and a CONCLUSION. 
     The order in which statements are made by the topic author and the sequence of subsequent associations between them are irrelevant. A second statement is labeled an ASSUMPTION until the user adds a statement to support it at which time it becomes a CONCLUSION. This process continues for all statements until the topic author is confident that 1) each statement labeled as an ASSUMPTION, i.e., one that has no supporting statements, is truly something she is assuming and believes will be accepted as a fact or will not be contended, and 2) that each CONCLUSION, i.e., a statement that is supported by another statement, has all of the supporting statements she wants to provide. Of all the CONCLUSIONS made by the topic author, one or more will be considered the “point” of the discussion that the topic author wants to debate. Generally, the point will be the final CONCLUSION, that is, a CONCLUSION that is not supporting another statement. It is possible that an ASSUMPTION may be considered a point but it would very likely be considered by users to be a weak or trivial point and the topic author proceeds on this premise at her own adversarial peril. 
       FIG. 4  is a block diagram of a topic structure  70  in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. A sub-component of topic structure  70  is a debate structure  80 . Also shown as part of topic structure  70  is a revision history  72  for topic structure  70 . In a preferred embodiment, topic structure  70  is comprised of one or more debate structures. 
       FIG. 5  is a block diagram of a debate structure in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. Debate structure  80  is a single statement  81  or concept (which may require more than a single statement to be expressed), i.e., either an ASSUMPTION or CONCLUSION, and all of the data that may be associated with statement  81 , such as critiques  82 , rebuttals  83 , a debate structure revision history  84 , and scores  85 . Initially, when debate structure  80  is created, the only element of debate structure  80  that the topic author can change directly is statement  81 . A topic author may add rebuttals  83  at a later point thereby revising debate structure  80 . Otherwise a topic author cannot make a permanent change to debate structure  80  or to any other data she has posted for other users to see. 
     All users except the topic author can critique a statement  81  of any debate structure  80 . A critique is added by the application software using critique addition module  41 . Once a user has added a critique, the topic author may respond with a corresponding rebuttal  83 . Rebuttal  83  is added by the application software using rebuttal addition module  42 . In a preferred embodiment only the topic author can rebut a critique  82  to one of the author&#39;s statements in a given debate structure  71 . 
     The author of a critique  82  can revise the critique  82 . This is implemented by critique revision module  41 . Similarly, the topic author can revise her rebuttal  83 , implemented by rebuttal revision module  42 . Previous revisions of critiques  82  and rebuttals  83  can be viewed in revision history  84  of each debate structure  71 . 
     In a preferred embodiment, revision history  84  shows relationships of critiques  82  and rebuttals  83 , for example, which revised rebuttal was made in response to which critique. When a previous critique  82  is selected for display, a corresponding rebuttal  83  is also shown (and vice versa), thus providing context for the critique and rebuttal. 
     As mentioned, a topic author can revise a statement of a debate structure  71  that is in a topic structure  70  created by the author and republish using the topic revision module  40 . 
     Returning to topic structure  70 , once it has been created, the topic author can publish topic structure  70  using topic addition module  40 . Topic structure  70  can be composed of any number of debate structures. Debate structures are added to topic structure  70  using topic revision module  40 . Topic structure  70  is manifested to the public by two visual components of topic structure  70 : topic layout  91  shown in  FIG. 3  and a statement map  90  shown in  FIG. 6 , described below. 
       FIG. 6  is a block diagram of a statement map in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. In a preferred embodiment, a user wanting to know the topic of debate will see, specifically, a statement map  90  and a topic layout  91 . Map  90  and layout  91  are displayed via display module  60 . Statement map  90  is generated by statement map creation module  44  which examines topic structure  70  in order to create map  90 . Topic layout  91  is also generated by examining topic structure  70 . 
     Once a topic structure  70  is published, statement map  90  and topic layout  91  are viewable to any user. Statement map  90  has boxes labeled A through F which correspond to ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS in  FIG. 3 . Characters are used in the illustration shown in  FIG. 3  to prevent confusion. Numerals or other identifiers can be used to label the boxes. In a preferred embodiment, boxes that are shaded are ASSUMPTIONS and un-shaded boxes represent CONCLUSIONS. In other embodiments, ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS are visually distinguishable in some other manner. The lines between the boxes represent that the statement above supports the statement below. This creates a top-down hierarchical map showing the logical support structure of a debate. The statement map feature allows users to easily visualize the structure of a debate: Are there many assumptions being made? Are conclusions being made based on assumptions or other conclusions? Is this an extensive, far-reaching argument or a concise one? and so on. 
     In a preferred embodiment, an ASSUMPTION  81  that remains unchanged after a topic structure revision carries forward its entire corresponding debate structure  71  including any related critiques  82  and rebuttals  83  given that ASSUMPTIONS have no dependencies. However, for the same ‘carry forward’ feature to apply for a CONCLUSION, there cannot be changes to any of the CONCLUSION&#39;s supporting debate structures. A topic author and other users are informed when an entire corresponding debate structure does not carry over. They are also informed when an ASSUMPTION has been changed. 
     In a preferred embodiment, the default viewing option is one where a user views a topic structure  70  wherein certain or, if desired, all critiques  82  and rebuttals  83 , are hidden. This option gives the user an uncluttered view of the original argument. A user also has the option of viewing any topic structure  70 , presented as topic layout  91  where each statement  81  within debate structure is displayed only with the most recent associated critiques  82 , rebuttals  83  and partial revision history  84 . 
     In another preferred embodiment, a topic author has the option of limiting which users can view or participate in an adversarial discussion. These users are identified in a “whitelist” of user and domain names. This allows entities such as a governmental organizations or universities, to limit discussion participants as desired. 
     In another embodiment, a topic author has the option of allowing specific users to share with the topic author the responsibility of revising a topic structure&#39;s statements and rebuttals. In addition, the topic author may allow users the option of co-writing critiques. Thus, a critique may have two or more authors. The topic author can also allow one or more users to score the statements, critiques and rebuttals in a debate structure. These users can be specified in a whitelist of user and domain names. Such group topic revision, group critiquing, and group scoring facilitate debates among teams and can be a useful feature in classrooms, groups, organizations, and so on. For example, teams can be created and named, Defenders, Critics, and Evaluators. Defenders are those who can create/revise statements and create/revise rebuttals, Critics can create/revise critiques, and Evaluators can score. The topic author does not necessarily need to belong to any of these groups which allows a moderator or instructor to create a topic, create teams and let them debate. Following the same example, in a preferred embodiment, the Defenders, by default, are the topic owners and the Critics and Evaluators are open to all users. The presence of a specific group of Critics also allows the online debate application to inform those users when the topic is published and ready for their review. 
     In another preferred embodiment a user can post a critique to a statement only if that user has viewed at least one previous critique of that statement  81 . This requirement helps reduce unnecessary duplication of critiques. In another preferred embodiment all critiques are displayed when a user wishes to add a critique and is not required to read any critiques. 
     In a preferred embodiment, a user can add a topic structure  70  to a watchlist. This allows the user to return to that topic structure easily from any location in the online debate application software of the present invention. In another preferred embodiment, a user can tag an option to a topic structure that the user has placed on the watchlist. For example, one option may be to have the debate application software notify the user when the topic structure has been updated regardless of whether the user is participating in a debate on the topic. 
     In a preferred embodiment, a user can evaluate any statement  81 , critique  82 , or rebuttal  83  that the user did not create. This evaluation can be manifested by assigning a score to statement  81 . For example, critiques and rebuttals are scored by explicitly agreeing with a particular critique or rebuttal, disagreeing with the critique or rebuttal, or disagreeing with accompanying rationale. For example, a rationale or reason can be one of the following: generalization, “from authority,” red herring, “straw man,” “begs the question,” false analogy or personal attack. Several other rationales and reasons can also be available to the user or the user can create rationales ad hoc. 
     Thus, a user can score a statement by explicitly agreeing with the statement. Similarly, a user can score a statement by disagreeing with the statement, for example, by posting a new critique or agreeing with an existing critique. If a user agrees with a critique of a statement, the user has by implication disagreed with the statement and with the topic structure. However, a user cannot post a disagreement with the entire topic structure unless the user has agreed with or written a critique of a topic statement. 
     In a preferred embodiment, topics—manifested by topic structures—can be ranked. Ranking, also referred to as scoring, allows a user to quickly determine which statements in a topic structure, as opposed to critiques and rebuttals, have the highest number of disagreements or negatives. This can be shown in statement map  90  or topic layout  91  and allows users to focus on the more contentious points in a debate. A user can make a single critique which can devastate an argument and remain visible to all users regardless of how often the topic author revises her rebuttal in response to the single critique. 
     Ranking also assists new users in identifying topics that may be of interest to them. For instance, a user may want to participate or examine a topic that has many users (both in terms of percentages and numbers) agreeing with the point of the topic, which can be gleaned from a quick review of the topic&#39;s rank. A topic is ranked based on scores given to various components of its debate structures, namely, statements, critiques, and rebuttals. In a preferred embodiment, a topic is ranked based primarily on users agreement or disagreement with the topic. Logically, disagreement with a topic is caused by agreeing with critiques but the score of a rebuttal has no impact on an overall topic rank. 
     Users can disagree with critiques and rebuttals with options such as those mentioned earlier: generalization, “from authority,” red herring, “straw man,” “begs the question,” false analogy, personal attack, and others. The online debate application can create visual representations, such as graphs, that display these options for each critique and rebuttal. This allows users to clearly see the frequency of the various forms of disagreement others had with a particular critique or rebuttal. Critique ranking can also be used to order the presentation of critiques after a topic statement. For example, the critique with the highest number in agreement would appear first insuring that the most valid criticism of a topic statement as judged by those scoring is the first critique that a user would see following the topic statement. 
     While a topic author can revise the topic at any time, i.e., revise any statement within the topic structure, for example, add or delete topic statements, another user may make her own copy of the topic structure and revise it as she sees fit. She then owns the copy of the topic structure and can make new statements which other users can critique. In a preferred embodiment a copy of the topic structure includes a pointer back to die original topic structure so that users can see the origin of the material. 
     In a preferred embodiment, a user has the option of allowing another user to e-mail a formatted and ‘cleaned up’ URL and message regarding a topic structure to other users or individuals not using the application. A topic author or any other user can also create a hyperlink for any statement, critique or rebuttal, and send the link to other users. This enables a user to point other users directly to a specific response to a statement regardless of where the response resides; for example, whether it is in a history or whether it is the most recent response made in a debate structure. In another preferred embodiment, a particular user can conceal or collapse critiques by other users which the particular user believes clutters the debate, are unconstructive, or are simply chronically useless to the debate. These hidden critiques can still be viewed by other users. 
     Embodiments within the scope of the present invention may also include computer-readable media for carrying or having computer-executable instructions or data structures stored thereon. Such computer-readable media can be any available media that can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer. By way of example, and not limitation, such computer-readable media can comprise RAM, ROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to carry or store desired program module means in the form of computer-executable instructions or data structures. When information is transferred or provided over a network or another communications connection (either hardwired, wireless, or combination thereof) to a computer, the computer properly views the connection as a computer-readable medium. Thus, any such connection is properly termed a computer-readable medium. Combinations of the above should also be included within the scope of the computer-readable media.