I have also felt that debates were a deeply misused form of social knowledge sharing. I think what you did with Habryka worked well, and I would be interested in a format where two debaters each got a turn to be the questioner.
I wonder why no-one has just directly tried to do turing debate, where the debaters submit ~2000 words that explain their views to each other beforehand, then the actual debate is them taking on the position of the other side and trying to debate that.
An idea I’ve had for a while is to do a taboo debate. Where the debators/audience submits words that are tabooed. I don’t know how well it would work, but it seems like it might help a little bit by giving people a tool to focus the discussion.
I wonder why no-one has just directly tried to do turing debate, where the debaters submit ~2000 words that explain their views to each other beforehand, then the actual debate is them taking on the position of the other side and trying to debate that.
One idea might be to pair debates with Delphi panels: do the usual Delphi method to get a consensus report beforehand, and then have them explain & debate what is left over as non-consensus (or possibly, if there are some experts who disagree hotly with the consensus report, bring them on for a debate with the original panel).
I have also felt that debates were a deeply misused form of social knowledge sharing. I think what you did with Habryka worked well, and I would be interested in a format where two debaters each got a turn to be the questioner.
I wonder why no-one has just directly tried to do turing debate, where the debaters submit ~2000 words that explain their views to each other beforehand, then the actual debate is them taking on the position of the other side and trying to debate that.
An idea I’ve had for a while is to do a taboo debate. Where the debators/audience submits words that are tabooed. I don’t know how well it would work, but it seems like it might help a little bit by giving people a tool to focus the discussion.
One idea might be to pair debates with Delphi panels: do the usual Delphi method to get a consensus report beforehand, and then have them explain & debate what is left over as non-consensus (or possibly, if there are some experts who disagree hotly with the consensus report, bring them on for a debate with the original panel).