Sed Contra is a platform for structured argumentation modeled on the scholastic method of Thomas Aquinas. In the Summa Theologiae, each question follows a rigorous structure: objections are raised, a counter-position is stated (sed contra — "on the contrary"), the author responds (respondeo), and each objection is answered in turn.
We adapt this method for the web. Instead of a single author, the entire community contributes claims, evidence, votes, and formal responses — building a network of interconnected reasoning where ideas are evaluated on the quality of their evidence, not on who said them.
Claims
A claim is a testable assertion — any statement that can be supported or opposed with evidence. Claims are the fundamental building blocks of the platform.
- Each claim has a clear title and a detailed description providing context
- Claims are categorized by field tags (e.g., "economics," "climate-science," "philosophy") that identify the relevant domain
- Anyone can submit a claim; the community determines its merit through evidence and voting
Evidence
Claims are evaluated through evidence — other claims linked as either supporting or opposing a parent claim. This creates a recursive network: a piece of evidence is itself a claim that can have its own evidence, and so on.
- Supporting evidence strengthens the parent claim's validity
- Opposing evidence weakens it
- Evidence quality matters: a well-supported piece of evidence carries more weight than an unsupported one
- The platform detects and prevents circular evidence chains
This recursive structure mirrors Aquinas's method of stacking objections and counter-objections. A claim with deep, well-supported evidence on both sides represents a thoroughly examined question.
Voting and Reputation
Users vote on claims, evidence, and responses. But not all votes are equal.
Your reputation determines your vote's weight. Reputation is earned through quality contributions: submitting claims that receive upvotes, providing evidence that the community finds relevant, and participating constructively. Vote weight scales logarithmically (log10) with reputation, so early contributions matter most and no single user can dominate.
Reputation is also tracked per field. If you've built expertise in "molecular-biology" through strong contributions in that domain, your votes on molecular biology claims carry more weight than your votes in, say, "art-history." This encourages genuine domain expertise rather than indiscriminate voting.
Scores
Every claim has several scores, each capturing a different dimension of its standing in the community:
Validity
A claim's evidence-weighted quality. Validity is calculated recursively: a claim supported by high-validity evidence scores higher than one supported by unsubstantiated assertions. Opposing evidence pulls validity down. This is the primary measure of how well a claim holds up under scrutiny.
Centrality
How structurally important a claim is within the evidence network, computed using a PageRank-style algorithm. Claims that are frequently cited as evidence by other high-authority claims earn higher centrality. A high-centrality claim is a foundational piece of the platform's reasoning — many arguments depend on it.
Consensus
The degree of community agreement. Ranges from −100 (strong rejection) to +100 (strong acceptance). A claim with a consensus near zero is actively contested; one near +100 has broad community support.
Controversy
Measures voting polarization. A claim with many upvotes and many downvotes is controversial, even if its net score is near zero. High controversy flags claims where the community is genuinely divided rather than merely indifferent.
Depth
How thoroughly a claim has been examined. Depth reflects the length and completeness of the evidence chains beneath a claim. A high-depth claim has been argued through multiple layers of supporting and opposing evidence.
Field Tags
Every claim is tagged with one or more field tags identifying its domain (e.g., "ethics," "economics," "computer-science"). Field tags serve several purposes:
- They help users discover claims in their areas of interest
- They scope reputation: your expertise is tracked per field
- They weight votes: users with field-specific reputation have more influence on claims in that field
- The community can vote on field tags themselves, affecting their legitimacy
Respondeo
The respondeo is the culmination of the scholastic method. After a claim has accumulated evidence on both sides, experienced users can write a formal response — a synthesized assessment that addresses the objections and counter-arguments, drawing conclusions from the available evidence.
- Writing a respondeo requires a minimum level of field reputation, ensuring that responses come from users with demonstrated expertise
- Responses must cite evidence from the claim, showing engagement with the existing arguments
- The community votes on responses, and the highest-rated current response represents the community's best synthesis
- Responses can be superseded as new evidence emerges or better syntheses are written
The respondeo distinguishes Sed Contra from ordinary debate forums. Rather than letting arguments accumulate indefinitely, it provides a mechanism for resolution — or at least for articulating the strongest version of each position.
Putting It Together
A fully developed question on Sed Contra looks like this:
- A claim states a position
- Supporting evidence marshals arguments and sub-claims in its favor
- Opposing evidence raises objections (videtur quod)
- The community votes, weighting each piece by the voters' expertise
- Scores emerge: how valid is the claim? How central? How contested?
- An experienced user writes a respondeo, synthesizing the evidence into a reasoned conclusion
The result is a structured, traceable record of argumentation — not a shouting match, but a genuine attempt to think through hard questions together.
Getting Started
- Browse existing claims to see the platform in action
- Submit your first claim with a clear, testable title
- Add evidence to claims you find interesting — support or oppose
- Vote thoughtfully; your reputation will grow with quality participation
- Read the community guidelines for expectations on conduct