Existing tools allow valuable exchanges and debates to occur but do not facilitate structure that is necessary for resolution and learning. For example, in the debate over global warming, the subject is far too broad to be discussed usefully as a a whole. It has to first be broken into subarguments:

• Warming is/not occuring;
• Warming is/not human caused;
• Warming is/not a cause for concern;
• The U.S. should adopt a policy to reduce global warming. … etc.

And then again:

• Warming is/not a cause for concern;
• Warming (increases/has no effect on) hurricanes;
• Warming (increases/has no effect on) biodiversity;
• Warming (increases/has no effect on) spread of disease.. etc.

For the most part, online debate over broad and contentious issues such as global warming occurs at these sub levels and can be very useful. The problem

Related to the problem of structure is the problem of persistance. Even if a user could locate the relevant debate over a specific subargument on a discussion forum or discussion list archive, she can not be certain that the debate is still relevant. With online discussion forums, debate over sub-points occur in spurts and usually devolve into a clash between a few personalities that discourages others from getting involved (ex. Godwin's Law). The structured format of the Open Debate Engine can help resolve this by providing a permanent home for each argument and its subargument.

A third problem with current online discussion is the tendency for users to gather and argue only with users who already share their viewpoint (also known as homophily). For example, the political blogosphere is divided into right vs. left, wingbat vs. moonnut, factions. The open debate engine system will attempt to counteract this tendency by showing the counterargument for each argument, forcing the various factions to confront each others' positions.