I’ve revised the judging form for the Ideological Turing Test (starting tomorrow) based on your comments. Here’s the updated link. I’ve split the “How compelling/attractive do you find this entry?” question into two parts, and below is the language that introduces that section.
For the next two questions, I want you to judge the CONTENT of the entry. Regardless of whether you think the writer is sincere, are they making a good pitch for their side?
The first question asks you to evaluate the logic of the answers. You may not share all the assumptions of the author, even if s/he is ostensibly on your side, but do you think the worldview is fairly coherent?
The second question asks how attractive the worldview of the author is. For this question, try to approach the answers as you would a fantasy or scifi world. Regardless of whether it’s true, is it attractive? Would you want to visit or live in that world?
Last year, some participants imitated ‘dumb’ or ‘boring’ members of the other team and passed. I want to see if people agree that those answers are lackluster this time around, if anyone uses the same strategy. I’m also curious whether the most plausibly sincere entries are generally seen as the best responses, and if these assessments vary by religious belief.