# Discussion Trees Article
**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees-article/198
**Category:** Elliot Temple
**Tags:** idea-trees
**Created:** [June 10, 2021, 9:55pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees-article/198 "2021-06-10T21:55:31Z")
**Posts on this page:** 7
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [June 10, 2021, 9:55pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees-article/198/1 "2021-06-10T21:55:31Z")
I just put up an article:
[https://www.elliottemple.com/essays/discussion-trees](https://www.elliottemple.com/essays/discussion-trees)
---
### Author:  [@JustinCEO](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/JustinCEO)
#### Post date: [June 10, 2021, 10:35pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees-article/198/2 "2021-06-10T22:35:01Z")
> The point is, you can use nodes to talk about the relationships between other nodes. That lets both the nodes and the relationships have written explanations. A simple way to do this is to have some nodes that say “Relationship:” at the start, or which have a specific color, that explain the relationship between the two nodes they connect. If you use that a lot, then every other level of the tree could explain relationships.
good point to emphasize
> An argument either positively supports or negatively criticizes its parent node.
i don’t like “positively supports”
---
### Author:  [@JustinCEO](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/JustinCEO)
#### Post date: [June 10, 2021, 10:52pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees-article/198/3 "2021-06-10T22:52:57Z")
> But with a decisive argument, saying it’s unimportant is an inappropriate response (unless you think its parent, the thing it’s criticizing, is unimportant). An argument that claim is incorrect is important and should be evaluated.
Had some halting in reading/parsing the second sentence there. Initially wanted an article (like “the”) before “claim”, then had to go back to try to figure out what it was saying (might just be my own parochial reading issue but I figure u’ll appreciate me mentioning it)
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [June 10, 2021, 11:02pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees-article/198/4 "2021-06-10T23:02:39Z")
i think that’s just a typo and there should be an article or determiner. i’ll add “a”.
---
### Author:  [@JustinCEO](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/JustinCEO)
#### Post date: [June 11, 2021, 10:33pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees-article/198/5 "2021-06-11T22:33:38Z")
Another typo (with suggested edit):
> But if anyone disagrees or objects, then the standard way to resolve that disagreement should be to translate the positive arguments to ~~a~~ negative arguments.
---
### Author:  [@JustinCEO](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/JustinCEO)
#### Post date: [June 11, 2021, 10:42pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees-article/198/6 "2021-06-11T22:42:28Z")
> More informally, you can include indecisive arguments and commentary in a debate tree as long as the decisive and indecisive parts are clearly labelled **(separate colors for decisive and indecisive parts generally works well).**
(emphasis added)
I squinted at this one for a minute cuz “colors … works” seemed wrong. But I think there’s an implied gerund here so it’s like “[Using] separate colors … works well” and is thus maybe fine?
---
### Author:  [@JustinCEO](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/JustinCEO)
#### Post date: [June 11, 2021, 10:49pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees-article/198/7 "2021-06-11T22:49:59Z")
> If you don’t have a conclusion yet, you can ~~use~~ use the tree to express what you do know and work towards reaching a conclusion.
double word