@"While governments have stepped in by creating common currencies, this is not ultimately necessary in a truly free market and can in fact be counter-productive." --GoranKaplovic

While governments have stepped in by creating common currencies, this is not ultimately necessary in a truly free market and can in fact be counter-productive. The free market depend

This is the test of the all new ArgueThis widget. If this shows up, then the widget is working as expected.

There is no real reason for having this extra blog, except that it appears that having such a thing might increase the exposure of Argumentum to Google and other search engines. You can see this blog at http://argumentumapp.wordpress.com/ Please go over there, comment, and link to that blog as well as to this site. Otherwise, how will anyone every know that Argumentum is the best debate site on the web, and the best place to argue in the world?

@"you can enter a proposition related to this argument and make a whole new argument" --Argumentum

The goal of Argumentum is to provide a better way for people to argue online. In most digital discussion mediums, such as forums, blogs or email, the arguer is forced to respond to an entire argument all at once. While this may be OK in an email, since there are usually only a few parties involved, this method of responding (all at once) is responsible for the chaos and disorder that is clearly evident in the forums, message boards and the like. On Argumentum, you can address multiple points.. one by one, by posting multiple follow-up arguments. This naturally breaks down the original argument into a set of propositions, thus making the system much more logical, scientific and stimulating.

@"Usually you use comments for witty remarks, to contest factual errors in an argument, or give the arguer props" --Argumentum

While the Argumentum comment system is robust (it has full threading, etc), it is meant to be used primarily for short reactions to an argument and for 1v1 shotgun conversations. While a comment can, theoretically, be of any length.. we advise that if you are really trying to argue you ought to use the distinguishing feature of Argumentum, the follow-up argument. The comments should be used, primarily for witty riposte, to contest a factual error in an argument, to call out an arguer for a elementary logical error or to simply give him props. If you do decide post a comment, please note that unlike follow-up arguments, comments are not indexed in Argumentum's search database and do not count towards your arguer score.

the Argumentum comment system is not that amazing -FinderMarket,

Once you post a new argument, you now have the option of tagging it with a certainty, topics, and free tags.

certainty: How sure are you of your position (whether supporting or opposing). Choose mild, medium or strong.

topics: What topics does your argument touch upon?

free tags: For example, if your argument a movie review, you might want to add the tag movie review in this field.

Good luck and happy tagging!

This is a tutorial for Argumentum, an app with attitude. Clearly it is an amazing app, only eclipsed in its greatness by this friendly tutorial. You can comment on this argument by clicking on [comment] below. Usually you use comments for witty remarks, to contest factual errors in an argument, or give the arguer props. If you want to seriously reply, I suggest you follow-up by clicking the appropriate link below. This will bring up a form, where you can enter a proposition related to this argument and make a whole new argument. If you want to argue against this argument, but have your argument respond to the same proposition as this one, then copy its title and paste it where it says follow-up proposition. I don't recommend this, since you could do that at any regular discussion forum, but people have been asking for it, so their wish was my command. Good luck, and have fun fellow arguer.

use comments sparingly -Argumentum, post multiple follow-up arguments to address different points -Argumentum,

Religion was never the foundation of the United States of America, although a lot of Americans have been religious. This looks like its about to change.



Clearly Hitchens has the upper hand with anyone who understands a bit about history.

Riled up is yesterday's news. While it thinks its all cool, with its nice colors and oh so 2007 design, it is sorely lacking as a truly great place to argue. Argumentum is younger, better and much much cooler. Designed around argumentation theory with the purpose of connecting arguments across the web, it is ready to take the web by storm.

Unless you are in a formalized debate with winners and losers, arguing is not a zero sum games. Both parties can win. If you 'lose' the argument, then you really win because you now have a better understanding of the topic. If you 'win' the argument then you win by virtue of strengthening your own convictions or logic. The only true way to lose is to stubbornly view the topic at hand in the exact same light as before. This happens if, as the 'winner' you prematurely discount your opponents logic because you think its beneath you, or as the 'loser' you stubbornly refuse to see that your opponent has made a good case.. choosing instead to end the argument and avoid disturbing your internal peace.

This is a rather insidious term used mostly to limit the free speech of those who think 'differently.' Free speech, as defined in the 1st amendment (see below) of the US constitution and in the eyes of our founding fathers, really means FREE SPEECH.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -1st Amendment

Note that it does not say congress shall make no law EXCEPT WHEN.... This is important because there are societal forces at work seeking to limit one of our most fundamental rights and undermine our constitution. These forces have managed to get a foothold in Canada, Europe and India.. through "hate-speech" laws, and through explicit exemptions in their constitutions which permit limits of speech in the "greater interest of the nation" etc. These exemptions do not exist in the US constitution, and for good reason. Our founders realized that the best way to prevent tyranny and oppression is not to have so called enlightened bureaucrats and politicians determine who can say what, and when.. that the freedom of the individual is always to be held higher than the so called "greater interest" of society. You can see a great argument for Absolute freedom of speech in the video here:(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6379618149058958603&ei=SZhOSuKxNIzyqgO6j4DEBg&q=hitchens+free+speech)

Recently, a friend of mine was lambasted by someone who was "offended" by an argument he made regarding terrorism and Pakistan (http://arg.umentum.com/arguers/GauravBhatia?show=terrorists_have_no_religion). It was claimed by the offended party that there are "educated" people dedicated to pursuing this debate, and his intrusion into their territory was unacceptable. This sort of sentiment must be fought at every level, since its aim is to ultimately prevent people like you and me from speaking their mind.

hate speech should be banned -ArjunVasan,

@"democratically controlled" --Argumentum

The quality of these depends mostly on the quality of the site's community. Digg, for example, is probably one of the worst places on the internet for an argument. Its infamously rabid trolls are quick to downmod (vote downward) any post they disagree with, and to fill the discussion with a steady stream of nonsense which seems to satisfy some sociopathic urge about which I dare not speculate. This is exacerbated by Digg's distribution of modding power (the most prolific users, who tend to be the most obnoxious, are also the most powerful). Reddit, on the other hand, benefits from its slightly more intelligent community and is generally a more enjoyable experience. However it suffers from the same topical(tech/politics/celebrity) and political(leftist) slant as Digg.

@"moderator controlled" --Argumentum

Depending on the skill, intelligence and determination of the moderator, these forums often contain some of the best arguments on the web. To achieve their ends, these enlightened despots often remove posts that they consider to be provocative, offensive or obnoxious. Inevitably this results in censorship, which anyone who loves arguing knows is the worst enemy of logic. Furthermore, moderators are people who take extra time out of the day to do something they are not paid for, and therefore usually people with high interest(and bias) in the topics at hand. For this reason these forums seem to attract two sets of users: passionate individuals who share the goals and bias of the community/moderator(the majority), and obnoxious trolls(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolls) who are out cause destruction and chaos(a small minority). Troll posts(flames) are of two types-> a. profanity/nonsense/spam posts in which the goal seems to be general mayhem, and b. offensive, obnoxious or argumentative posts in which the goal is to cause doubt and psychological damage on regular users. The first type is limited in non-anonymous communities such as Facebook(http://www.facebook.com/) where those who might be so inclined are stifled by the possibility of social exclusion(or have no friends to begin with). The second type are the kind which I will now discuss.

If you observe such forums, you might notice a disturbing trend. The majority of threads suffer from scarce participation(the majority of users agree with eachother and have little to discuss), however a small minority of threads have extraordinary participation. These prolific threads are most often those where the aforementioned trolls have posted comments which run contrary to the etiquette or views of the majority, therefore inciting responses. What this should tell you is that participation in arguments is driven by conflict, which is a hard thing to find in a forum of like-minded people. In other words, the logic/illogic of these called "flame" posts could really be constructive if channeled in the right way.

@"anonymous or unmoderated" --Argumentum

Although free of censorship, arguments on these tend to descend into chaotic, spam filled, profanity laced, rant-driven and mostly unintelligible battles(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_wars). The anonymity confers a feeling of verbal invincibility to the participants, who are eager to take advantage of their freedom. Unless this sort of thing thrills you, these forums are usually a waste of time and energy.

Web based arguments take place in one of roughly three forum types: anonymous or unmoderated(some message boards), moderator controlled(most message boards, blogs, comment sections on media sites etc.), democratically controlled(digg->http://digg.com/, reddit->http://www.reddit.com/, etc...). Argumentum has been designed to benefit from the advantages of all three types of moderation, while avoiding the disadvantages. As there are no human "enlightened despot" moderators, there is unfettered free speech. As there is no 'voting' and user driven downmodding, there is a reduced chance of certain views and subjects being excluded by a passionate majority or power-mad aristocracy. Since Argumentum is primarily a place to argue with people you actually know, peer pressure will limit profane content. Since arguments/arguers are ranked by the activity they generate, users are encouraged to be provocative and interesting. Since Argumentum is based around propositions, and not links or media content(Digg or Reddit), there is a reduced incentive to spam....

There's lots more to come, so check back here(http://arg.umentum.com/about/blog) often. In the meantime, feel free to post your arguments and get your friends and enemies from Facebook, Twitter, and Google(blogger,gmail, etc.) involved too.

unmoderated forums -Argumentum, moderator controlled forums -Argumentum, democratically controlled forums -Argumentum,