A tool for practicing
critical thinking
through arguments.
State a claim. Build it into a logical argument
with premises and a conclusion. Let the system —
and others — test whether it actually holds.
Our Mission
Discussions break down in predictable ways. Authors leave their reasoning implicit. Readers reconstruct it on the fly. Bias toward names and personalities outranks the ideas themselves. And the tools we have to respond reward fragments over substance.
Proposit makes the structure of an argument explicit. Authors lay out their position as a chain of claims, each one earning its place. Readers see, at a glance, what supports what. Responses target the logic, not the person — and challenges land on the specific premise that breaks. The propositional logic underneath is accessible without prior expertise: build by intuition; let the engine handle verification.
Most platforms reward confidence. We reward validity.
From claim to
validated argument.
State your claim
Pick a claim you believe. Be specific. It becomes the conclusion your argument will prove.
Justify your position
Add supporting premises and source references to remove doubt about your claims. Each one has to earn its place.
Test its validity
Others can probe your argument for counterexamples and challenge your reasoning directly — not your personality.
What makes
Proposit
different?
Ideas over identities
Your argument is judged on what it says, not who said it.
Clarity through structure
Organizing your thinking into premises and a conclusion reveals what you actually know — and what you're assuming.
Sources over soundbites
Every premise can carry source references. Claims that hide behind "everyone knows" don't survive scrutiny.
Logic, not talking points
Arguments are built from premises and conclusions. Every response must engage with the logic directly — no deflecting, no changing the subject.