Objection: High risk of deadlock

f
Objection:

A Theory Mapping Debate requires agreement between both sides on many different things: Agreed Facts; Background Facts; and what can qualify as an incoherency. This is bound to result in deadlock, and if the moderator takes action to break it they will be labeled as biased by the losing side, reducing the methods claim to be neutral and objective.

Responses:

1. Definitions of facts and incoherencies are clear
If finding agreement on a particular fact is difficult, it can always be reduced to its most raw form as a publicly verifiable observation. The incoherencies are defined by the rules of logic, which are also clear.

2. Any areas of ambiguity can be removed by rules
Over time, a moderator’s rule book can be drawn up to clarify any areas of ambiguity. When signing up to a Theory Mapping Debate one has to agree to these rules.

3. Public account of deliberations
If any action is taken by the moderator which one side complains about, the issue is ultimately open to the jury of public opinion, since all of the proceedings would be recorded on the Theory Mapping website. If one side is seen to be being unreasonable, it will reflect badly on them as having to resort to underhand tactics in order to win.
f