Overview — Debate Market
Context
Today, online debates appear and then dissolve into feeds.
They repeat endlessly, fail to accumulate shared understanding, and rarely build on each other.
Nothing is structured. Nothing persists. Nothing improves collectively.
And yet, strong signals around us point toward a different direction:
-
Kialo shows that debate can be structured into branches of supporting and opposing arguments —
but the reasoning remains locked inside a single platform, without incentives, portability, or compounding. -
The recent Polymarket × Twitter momentum demonstrates that when beliefs are expressed publicly, tested over time, and tied to skin in the game,
a clearer signal emerges.
A strong validation that debate + market incentives + visibility outperform ephemeral opinion feeds. -
Tools like Claimify (Microsoft) reveal a parallel shift: extracting claims from unstructured conversation.
A push toward turning discourse into machine-readable meaning — but still siloed, without a shared graph or incentive layer.
Three forces are converging:
- Structuring arguments (Kialo)
- Surfacing belief signals (Polymarket)
- Extracting claims from discussion (Claimify)
Yet today, they remain fragmented, ephemeral, and platform-bound.
This project explores a different path:
Turn debate into structured, reusable reasoning.
Each contribution enriches a shared and portable memory instead of disappearing in a scroll.
Every argument can become a new discussion, a durable signal, and a node in a living graph.
Instead of disposable debates, a mental infrastructure where ideas breathe, evolve, and connect —
supporting collective sense-making that does not vanish.
Core concept
- A debate starts with a clear assertion
- Participants add claims for or against
- A debate can also be opened without taking a position at first
- Each claim = a triple on-chain (Subject → Predicate → Object)
- Any claim can become the starting point for a new debate
- Reasoning grows recursively, not linearly
User journey
Manual creation mode
Users write structured claims directly and assign for or against.
Assisted creation mode
Users write naturally; the system helps convert free text into structured claims:
- User writes an argument in natural language
- Assistant proposes structured claims and positions
- User reviews, edits, approves, or rejects
- Approved claims are stored as triples
The human always stays in control.
Supporting and voting
Participants can highlight, support, or challenge key claims without creating new branches.
Reading and exploring
Users can:
- read the claim tree
- explore deeper justifications and counterpoints
- navigate reasoning paths instead of scrolling feed noise
How it works
- A claim is directly stored as a semantic triple
- The system records relationships of meaning, not just text
- Arguments accumulate and connect across debates
- The result is a shared, navigable memory of reasoning
Debate becomes a growing structure of thought, not an ephemeral thread.
What this enables
- Reuse of arguments across debates
- Accumulation of reasoning instead of repeating it
- Visibility on how ideas develop over time
- Emergence of stable reasoning paths or abandoned ones
- Debate becomes a tool for building knowledge, not just expressing opinion
Future directions
For long-term extensions such as prediction layers,
emergent resolution participants, and AI agents that understand your reasoning style, see:
👉 Vision