[Kialo]

Thanks for feed-back and giving us a try.

The fancy sunburst, currently, only appears on initial load of a discussion, we are thinking of changing that. You can open it by clicking the (i) on the thesis, or via discussion menu "Discussion Info".

The link one above is correct, if you want people to have viewer rights, (which allows them to vote and suggest claims). If you want people to have writers rights, where they can immediately write into a discussion, you have to go to share, enable the writers sharing link and paste that. We do not recommend using that for public posting though.

Generally speaking, claims are supposed to make sense and relate to their parent claim, the one directly above it. This is the only way to allow for linking, intermap linking and copying of branches into other debates.

In very large debates, with thousands of claims and levels, often, a discussion on level 10, is really only pertaining ot the parent, e.g. this is not relevant here or attacking the veracity of a statement. How this claim relates to the thesis on top, isn't anymore that relevant.

Due to linking, it would also be quite confusing, one time the claim is a pro, then a con. And most people read claims as relevant for the parent directly above. That's why we spell out the "Support /Attack parent". I think it's also in the intro video.

[greggman]

still not clear what "parent" is. that might be in your mental model as an engineer? but it's not in mine based on the site itself.

I see topic->con. click to dispute con. see con and under it "attack parent" . to me with con showing on the screen the parent is the topic not the con. if it was the con the prompt would read "attach this con" or "attack the statement above" .

[Kialo]

We'll improve that wording, thanks for bringing it up.