Hi HN, I’m experimenting with a minimal web platform that explores whether structuring debates into discrete facts changes how people reason about claims. Instead of long threads where everything is mixed together, each claim has: a list of discrete supporting facts a list of discrete opposing facts separate discussions and votes on each fact The system does not produce a final “truth score” or verdict. It just exposes how agreement or disagreement on individual evidence accumulates. This is a very early MVP with: a simple voting mechanism category tagging basic UI for facts and comments There is no AI, no expert layer, and no claims of correctness. I’m interested in: whether users add real, sourced evidence how voting dynamics affect perceived credibility how the interface influences debate structure

Any feedback on the structure or design is welcome.