Show HN: ArgueWiki, where arguments live forever
arguewiki.com
You can only rank supporting arguments against other supporting arguments, opposing against opposing, etc, in a hope to neutralize confirmation bias for a given position. i.e., even if you agree with a perspective, you'd still have to decide what is the better argument for it.
I made this because I've spent too much time arguing with people on the internet, and sometimes you see the same tired arguments and rebuttals, and I just wished there was a place where you could point people so that they can walk through all the arguments and counterarguments themselves so it's not people just repeating themselves in circles.
I know it's a pretty common hobby horse for rationality & debate nerds; I've seen a lot of varieties of the same thing on the internet while seeing how else things were done. It started with the idea of argument mapping/trees and how different statements could connect to other statements, and perhaps there could be a massive web visual of how all statements interconnect...but it made me think of how people thought Obsidian's graph thing was cool, but ultimately pointless.
Anyways, I wanted to go the opposite direction; instead of tons of features relating to fallacies/rebuttals, etc, I wanted to make the objects as simple as possible, such that they were more easily digestible. And ultimately the form is pretty loose for how people construct their Arguments.
This is my first side project; I primarily work in film & entertainment, but minored in Math/CompSci and always wanted to build a website (what a dream, huh?). Just had a baby and not a lot of time, and only vanilla webDev experience (I STILL maintain my personal website with Dreamweaver, but am probably gonna revamp it now that I have more experience.) Over the course of the past year just learning the ins and outs of Vue, going thru a few iterations of frameworks, libraries, tweaking, DBs, migrations, local dev, etc.
Comparing it with all the AI side projects that are currently out there, it feels like a pretty humble CRUD site, but it feels nice to put something out there.
The styling obviously isn't anything to write home about, but I wanted to keep it minimalist and closer to a wiki aesthetic, but responsive. Accessibility probably leaves much to be desired, but that's why I ultimately leaned on headless and NuxtUI for interactive components.
At this point, though, the question of content/users remains. I tried seeding with an LLM, but did not really enjoy tuning the quality of content generated, the voice, the personas, etc. I'm now considering perhaps keyword scanning for debates on X/Twitter and converting those into content that links back. It feels a bit cringe going into fully automated reply bot territory for seeding/promoting it, but I'm not really sure what other avenues to pursue if it's just done.
Open to feedback, especially around UX A lot could probably be refined, but I'm sort of unsure how to make it easier for a new user to understand or to want to contribute. Higher-level feedback on the structure are also welcome; someone said to me that Statements and Arguments might still be too abstract for people and it should be one unified object, but I feel like I'd have to have more feedback to think about that.