[Yen]

On the subject of new discussion software, I'm interested in finding or creating a system where the typical end result is consensus among the participants, and future readers reading the end result will be likely persuaded of that consensus.

Even the most civil of online discussions don't typically end with one or both people changing their views, and the end result is, like you say, just a chronological discussion. Not only chronological, it tends to end up a bit cyclic.

I'm imagining something like a flow-chart, seeded with a single node, some assertion under discussion. Someone can make an argument for or against that assertion - and then future participants cannot make the same argument again. They can refine it, substitute their own version, or offer supporting/denying evidence as sub-arguments.

Ideally, at the end of that discussion, their would be a single flowchart, with each argument laid out exactly once, in its strongest/most persuasive form.

[jimhefferon]

> Ideally, at the end of that discussion, their would be a single flowchart, with each argument laid out exactly once, in its strongest/most persuasive form.

To some extent, that sounds like the StackExchange model, where editors feel free to come in and change what a person said in some way to create a permanent best answer. (Which, I have to admit, puts me off, personally.)