For instance, if you make an argument that a politician lied, then those points could be used to support the belief that the politician is corrupt.  The first debate would have a score. And then if people think that that conclusion or thesus supports a second debate, a portion of those points would be transfered to another debate.

This way, instead of making 1 very complex debate, we would link a whole bunch of simple debates together. Each assertion can be debated on its own merrits. You link them together by letting people use one debate as a reason to support another debate. This way one debate can be re-used very efficiently to support other debates. For instance the conclusion that gas prices will go up, can be used to support or oppose a bunch of different conclusions. For instance if it is true, or not true, it could support or strength argument involving building of bike paths, train tracks, government fuel gas efficiency requirments, exploration for domestic oil, etc.

Also, using this method you can establish neutral facts, that everyone agrees on, then you can use those points, if people agree that the link is a good one, to support larger arguments.

There are lots of ways to determine if one concept follows from another. But I think you just let peole vote... That way if there are 50 points supporting the belief that a politician told a big lie, and 25% of people think that if he told a big lie then he is corrupt, then I would multiply the percentage who agree that one conclusion supports the other by the points of the smaller conclusion, or: .25*50=12.5 extra points for the belief that the guy is corrupt...

Sorry about all the different examples... I don't know how to explain it any better... I need to just stop, walk away, and hope that it makes sence... 

What do you think?