FOR REASON NOT RECOGNITION I’m going to add this to my Quora signature because i

http://www.propertarianism.com/tools-and-techniques-for-political-debate/a-list-of-terms-for-use-in-evaluating-political-debate/CAPTCHA FOR REASON NOT RECOGNITION

I’m going to add this to my Quora signature because it seems like I use it in every debate:

“**So, you mean that you don’t understand, and can’t formulate an objection, so you will retreat into your ignorance, because you are operating on belief and not reason. Right?***”

Quora WAS interesting. But it’s degrading into just another Yahoo Forums / Internet Newsgroups. The useful thing about wikipedia is that the damned syntax prohibits casual editing by idiots.

We use CAPTCHA for proving you’re human. It’s a trivial Turing Test for recognizing letters and numbers. But to improve debate, we need an equivalent system to test not for RECOGNITION but for REASON.

I have to think about that a bit. Is there a way to generate random syllogisms that distinguish between sentimental, allegorical, normative (moral), historical, empirical, rational and ratio-empirical?

Just think of the value that would add to online arguments. 🙂 Or rather, the value it would have in reducing online arguments. 🙂

See my categorization of arguments here:

http://www.propertarianism.com/tools-and-techniques-for-political-debate/a-list-of-terms-for-use-in-evaluating-political-debate/#I