
Show HN: Sequiturs – a platform for rigorous, digestible arguments - ihinsdale
https://sequiturs.com
======
oldhill
I think this could be a great application to debate software technology
choices or best practices, discussion types often locked on StackExchange
sites as opinion-based [1].

Many discussions could benefit from the breakdown of arguments into individual
premises like "this language supports concurrency natively" and "this language
has been in production at X companies for Y years". And, since users can pose
counter arguments, it's OK if different users end up at different conclusions.

[1] [https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/252854/why-
doesnt-s...](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/252854/why-doesnt-stack-
overflow-allow-discussable-questions-or-questions-that-require)

~~~
ihinsdale
Yes! I completely agree. Sequiturs is a great fit for these opinionated
discussions that don't work in Stack Overflow's Q&A format.

Here's an example of debating a technology choice on Sequiturs:
[https://sequiturs.com/arguments/a-beginning-programmer-
who-n...](https://sequiturs.com/arguments/a-beginning-programmer-who-needs-to-
choose-which-language-to-learn-first-should-choose-javascript)

------
fizzbatter
I'm getting `NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID` when visiting, just fyi. (I
didn't go beyond that, fwiw)

~~~
ihinsdale
Woah. Thanks for the heads-up. I'm unable to reproduce that in Chrome or
Firefox but I'll look into it. I ran the Qualys SSL test on sequiturs.com just
yesterday and got an A+!

EDIT: I encountered a transient NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID a while back
as well, actually. I've just replaced the Comodo cert I was using with one
issued by Amazon. Would be very interested to know that it works for you now!

~~~
fizzbatter
Appears to be loading happily now :)

~~~
ihinsdale
Cool, thanks.

------
ihinsdale
Creator of Sequiturs here. Very happy to receive your feedback and answer
questions!

~~~
ihinsdale
I'll pose a question to get things started:

What do you think of the argument format that Sequiturs uses, namely, a series
of premises and conclusions?

I think this format has enormous value. It makes an argument much simpler to
parse, compared to reading paragraphs, and if I disagree with the argument, I
can easily express my disagreement by referencing the specific step(s) I
disagree with. It has a lot of other neat advantages, such as allowing
arguments to build upon each other, or to contradict each other, very
precisely.

On the other hand, we're not all used to breaking arguments down into this
format. You might be familiar with it if you took a philosophy or law class,
but otherwise there's a bit of a learning curve. I believe the benefits of the
format clearly outweigh this learning cost, but it's an open question what the
market thinks about that.

~~~
doganugurlu
I think it would help discuss validity of an argument very efficiently. I
often find myself having to parse premises out of prose in order to express
what I disagree with and as surprising as it sounds sometimes it gets
difficult because the author might like being wordy.

~~~
ihinsdale
Cool. On Sequiturs each step in an argument is called a proposition; a
proposition can be used in an argument as either a premise or a conclusion.
Propositions are sort of the atomic element of content on Sequiturs, since
they can be reused across arguments. Soon, propositions will have their own
pages, so that users can efficiently explore all the arguments where the
proposition is used, as well as vote on whether the proposition is true or
false and discuss that.

