Hi HN,
I’m experimenting with a minimal web platform that explores whether structuring debates into discrete facts changes how people reason about claims. Instead of long threads where everything is mixed together, each claim has:
a list of discrete supporting facts
a list of discrete opposing facts
separate discussions and votes on each fact
The system does not produce a final “truth score” or verdict. It just exposes how agreement or disagreement on individual evidence accumulates.
This is a very early MVP with:
a simple voting mechanism
category tagging
basic UI for facts and comments
There is no AI, no expert layer, and no claims of correctness. I’m interested in:
whether users add real, sourced evidence
how voting dynamics affect perceived credibility
how the interface influences debate structure
Any feedback on the structure or design is welcome.
Hi HN, I’m experimenting with a minimal web platform that explores whether structuring debates into discrete facts changes how people reason about claims. Instead of long threads where everything is mixed together, each claim has: a list of discrete supporting facts a list of discrete opposing facts separate discussions and votes on each fact The system does not produce a final “truth score” or verdict. It just exposes how agreement or disagreement on individual evidence accumulates. This is a very early MVP with: a simple voting mechanism category tagging basic UI for facts and comments There is no AI, no expert layer, and no claims of correctness. I’m interested in: whether users add real, sourced evidence how voting dynamics affect perceived credibility how the interface influences debate structure
Any feedback on the structure or design is welcome.