The heart, is just a thanks to the original author and doesn't impact the sorting.
We are going to do something drastic to the default impact shown, because we agree that the average is not really an interesting measure. 1-2 months.
I hope we are not overselling ourselves. We are no panacea, what we do, is facilitate and capture the reasoning of all viewpoints. This won't automatically lead to consensus. But at the very least you can now truly understand where others are coming from and write your opposing claims to whatever they consider being their strongest points.
More generally, though, I would be interested to hear how you would define "reason" and "rationality." These are difficult questions, and I'm interested to hear more about your approach.
Not speaking for the team, but, I would probably consider something to be argued rationally, that is logical within a cultural setting and frame of mind. Very often, this depends on the epistemological system a person is using. Take believers vs non-believers. Both can be rational within their framework, but many will consider other people's framework as not rational.
We think that claims should always be logical and pertaining to the parent claim above them, in YOUR belief system, otherwise it becomes incoherent and unreadable for others.
How would that be remedied? I think if a large enough group of users ranked arguments on intrinsic validity or soundness, the effect would be indistinguishable from popularity.
Imagine the results of asking everybody in the US to rank music on musical skill and artistic achievement. You would get the Top 40.