It is rude to say you’re ‘debunking’ when the issue is actually under debate—and doubly so to call it that on the site run by the people you’re ‘debunking’.
I think you meant “provoking” arguments … but that was not my intention.
Can you suggest a different word to replace “debunking” which conveys “exposing the falseness of an idea, or belief, which is currently being promoted by a large number of people, with serious consequences”?
I am open to changing the title, if that can be done, and if you can think of a word that conveys the intended meaning.
It is rude to say you’re ‘debunking’ when the issue is actually under debate—and doubly so to call it that on the site run by the people you’re ‘debunking’.
You’re providing arguments.
I think you meant “provoking” arguments … but that was not my intention.
Can you suggest a different word to replace “debunking” which conveys “exposing the falseness of an idea, or belief, which is currently being promoted by a large number of people, with serious consequences”?
I am open to changing the title, if that can be done, and if you can think of a word that conveys the intended meaning.
No, I really meant that you are providing arguments, and that had better have been your intention!
Your expanded wording doesn’t really convey an openness to being argued-against.
Like, ‘Here are some flaws I see in the argument presented’ is one thing.
‘Your idea is totally wrong, I will expose its falseness’ is another.
Also, I’m not seeing the serious consequences of being overly cautious in respect to AI development.
I think “exposing” fallacies would be a step in the right direction here.