Debby

The Library of Resolved Debates

Take every worldview at its strongest, then follow the argument all the way down.

Debby maps debates claim by claim until each chain reaches the ground it actually stands on — and publishes the questions it could not close as plainly as the ones it could.

Or read one first:A debate map →How we analyze →The library →

Debby is written from an Eastern Orthodox conviction and holds every position — including its own — to the same rubric. Where a case is unfinished, the page says so.

Start here

A debate, traced end to end

One question, two argument chains, every step visible. This is what a finished map looks like.

Curated mapTheology · 7 nodes

Can materialism account for the preconditions of intelligibility — logic, mathematics, morality?

The Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) tests whether materialism can account for the preconditions of intelligibility — logic, mathematics, morality, and the uniformity of nature.

Eastern Orthodox ChristianityagainstMaterialist Atheism

Open the map →

The working shelf

Questions we have not closed

These are live research maps, drafted by Debby and not yet reviewed by a person. We publish them unfinished on purpose — a library that only shows its wins is an advertisement.

Argument incompleteEpistemology · drafted by Debby, unreviewed

Can a transcendental argument reach the world, or only our beliefs?

The strongest case

The classic argument runs: for anyone to reason at all, certain things must already be true — so those things are true of the world, not merely believed by us.

What it still does not settle

We have not shown how the argument crosses from what a thinker must presuppose to what is actually the case outside the thinker. A critic can grant the presupposition and stop there.

Argument incompleteTheology · drafted by Debby, unreviewed

Why exactly three divine persons?

The strongest case

Orthodox tradition roots the Trinity in the Father as sole source, which answers how three persons can be one God without ranking or dividing them.

What it still does not settle

None of the accounts we tested derives why the number must be three rather than some other number. In the sources we read it is received by revelation, not proved.

Awaiting human reviewEthics · drafted by Debby, unreviewed

Can anything ground a moral obligation that actually binds?

The strongest case

On the Orthodox account the good is not a preference or a reward scheme: it is what a rational creature is for, so turning from it is a misuse of one's own nature.

What it still does not settle

The primary texts describe that order beautifully without establishing that it binds someone who refuses the framework. A revised standard has been drafted; no person has signed off on it.

Nothing on this shelf is a Library verdict. Debby proposes; a person decides what gets published. See the full shelf →

The method

How Debby reads an argument

The same three moves on every transcript, every worldview, every time.

State the case at its strongest

Before anything is criticised, each position is rebuilt in the form its own best defender would sign. A refutation of a weak version refutes nothing.

Separate what was said from what follows

Every line is marked as a quote, an inference drawn from it, or a judgment we are making. You can always see which of the three you are reading.

III

Follow the chain to where it ends

Every justification terminates somewhere: a foundation, a circle, or an endless regress. We record the terminus each side actually reaches — including when that is nowhere yet.

The instructions are public

The rules Debby analyses under are published in full, not summarised. You can read them before you trust a single map.

Read the method

Try it

Two ways in

One takes a minute and needs no account. The other puts the pipeline to work on a debate you choose.

Find where you stand

Twelve questions on the foundations — truth, knowledge, morality, meaning. It names the tradition your answers sit closest to and where your own reasoning is thinnest. No account needed.

Take the worldview test

Analyze a lecture or debate

Paste a YouTube link. Debby pulls the transcript, reconstructs each speaker’s argument, marks quote against inference, and traces the chain to its terminus. Sign in first — analysis runs on metered models.

Open the analyzer

Talk to us

Tell us where we are wrong

This is a small project with an open method, which makes outside pressure useful rather than annoying. Corrections, suggestions, and offers of help all go to the same place — and a person reads them.

Suggest or correct

A feature, a clause the analysis prompt should carry, a debate worth mapping, or a line in a published map that gets an argument wrong.

Send a suggestion→

Help build it

Engineering, research, editing, adjudication. The method is public precisely so someone other than us can work against it.

Offer to help→

Just get in touch

Questions about the project, the rubric, or what Debby will and will not claim. No form-letter replies — a person answers.

Contact the founder→

“The unexamined life is not worth living.”

Socrates, in Plato’s Apology

♦

Why Debby exists

Debates are won by rhetoric and confidence. The audience goes home remembering how a speaker carried himself, not whether the argument held. Points are forgotten, fallacies go untagged, and the same ground is fought over again a year later.

Debby is an attempt at the opposite: a written record where each chain is traced once, carefully, and kept. Where a case succeeds, the map shows why. Where it fails — including ours — the map shows that too.

We hold that truth is real and can be pursued by argument. That conviction obliges us to state the other side’s case well enough that they would recognise it, and to be honest when our own case is not yet finished.

How to read a map Start with one debate