- They are opinionated about the topic. In this case, they should form sound and easy-to-understand arguments for the viewpoint they endorse and submit them.
-
They are
not
strongly opinionated but interested in the topic. In this case, they can still significantly contribute to the topic in question by helping rank existing arguments.
More on nlite
nlite's Approach
nlite ranks arguments for each viewpoint independently of all other viewpoints. This means arguments compete only with others supporting the same viewpoint. The ultimate goal is to identify the top arguments for all viewpoints.
Notably, the platform always remains neutral and does not take sides on controversial topics.
trending_up
trending_up
Speed
The ranking methodology on the platform is based on a series of randomized pairwise comparisons that helps ensure all submitted arguments are screened. Mathematical results show that applied algorithms are efficient at identifying the top arguments. You just have to be a little patient and you will be surprised by the quality of the results that rise to the top!
speed
Ranking Procedure
The Evaluate Arguments button below each viewpoint helps with the ranking of arguments submitted for that viewpoint (See the figure below). When a user clicks on this button, the platform will select two arguments at random from the pool of arguments submitted for the viewpoint in consideration and ask for user's feedback on which of the two arguments is stronger. These pairwise comparisons are aggregated in real time to identify the top arguments for each viewpoint.
Similarly, the Evaluate Counters button below each argument helps with the ranking of counters submitted for that argument through a series of randomized pairwise comparisons.
The topic page displays the top few arguments identified for each viewpoint in real time. It also shows the single top counter identified for each argument. The full list of counters submitted for an argument can be found on its dedicated page.
Timeline
Investigating a controversial topic on the platform is governed by two deadlines: the Argument Submission Deadline and the Argument Evaluation Deadline. The Argument Submission Deadline is the cutoff point for users to submit their arguments. However, users can continue to evaluate existing arguments until the second deadline, the Argument Evaluation Deadline. Once the Argument Evaluation Deadline passes, the topic will be closed, and the final list of top selected arguments will be displayed.
The first deadline, the Argument Submission Deadline, helps ensure that all strong arguments are put forward for evaluation. The second deadline, the Argument Evaluation Deadline, occurs after some time has passed since the Argument Submission Deadline. The time gap between the two deadlines is aimed to allow for the evaluation of all submitted arguments – which is one of the key features of the platform.
The same deadlines described for arguments also apply to the submission and evaluation of counters.
Note. The individual who creates a topic will be able to change either deadline at any time based on the level of activity on the page.
Example Scenario
When visiting a topic page, users should evaluate which of the following situations applies more closely to them:
Notably, the two scenarios mentioned above are only presented to discuss two common ways of contributing to the platform. In reality, everyone is free to both submit and evaluate arguments.
The figure below illustrates the two roles mentioned above in an example scenario where the audience is a friend group consisting of 100 individuals. Assume there are two viewpoints on the topic at hand, each with approximately 10 staunch supporters. As mentioned earlier, these staunch supporters will typically be the ones who submit arguments. The remaining individuals are interested in the topic but not strongly opinionated. Given that this subgroup makes up 80% of the population, they will likely be the ones who are primarily responsible for evaluating the submitted arguments.
Distinctness of Arguments
It's easy to imagine that a strong argument can be presented in various forms by different people. If the ranking algorithm functions correctly, all of these instances will be elevated to the top of the list, resulting in redundancy among the selected top arguments. To avoid this issue, the platform needs a mechanism to identify and eliminate duplicate arguments.
When users click Evaluate Arguments
under a viewpoint, the platform may occasionally ask a different question while presenting two arguments: Are the following arguments (essentially) making the same point?
The responses to these questions help the platform identify and remove duplicate arguments. (Learn More)
tv_options_edit_channels
When users click Evaluate Arguments
under a viewpoint, the platform may occasionally ask a different question while presenting two arguments: Are the following arguments (essentially) making the same point?
The responses to these questions help the platform identify and remove duplicate arguments. (Learn More)
Next Steps
To make the best use of the platform, we highly recommend reviewing the Practical Tips. We also encourage you to check the User Guide to learn about various other interesting features of the platform, such as:
- How it nudges users to provide data-backed arguments
- How it incorporates users’ personal experiences and emotions
- How it protects users’ privacy
Overview