Scott argues that projects attempting to "solve debate" through argument mapping or similar technologies are fundamentally doomed because real arguments don't work like logical syllogisms, people don't actually want structured debates, and there's no evidence this approach has ever worked. Longer summary

Scott explains why he consistently rejects grant applications for projects aimed at improving online debates through argument mapping or similar technologies. He outlines several fundamental problems: real arguments don't decompose into simple logical premises and conclusions as these tools assume; arguments rarely hinge on simple factual errors or logical fallacies but on different weightings of evidence; these platforms face an impossible bootstrapping problem since people don't actually want structured debates (they want to express opinions and be agreed with); and unlike dating apps, there's no historical precedent for this type of technology working over thousands of years of human argumentation. Shorter summary