I think you need to acknowledge human nature and profit from it. Human’s love observing an argument. Twitter is too concise to form decent arguments. If ther

I think you need to acknowledge human nature and profit from it. Human’s love observing an argument. Twitter is too concise to form decent arguments. If there was a website called Dual - where people could register a username - then post on the forum where they were arguing to verify their dual account and then continue the argument on a platform set up for settling written arguments and integrating external references. People would talk less anonymous smack or have to back up their smack on dual and then write at a level that convinces the masses they know what they are talking about. No swearing on dual. The disagreements would actually educate everyone and the voting and following would tell you what to advertise. If someone was talking smack on a forum and didn’t register on dual you could assume they were a coward or a troll. If followers could supply duelers with arguments we would get to the truth in an entertaining way very quickly and any misunderstanding would be highlighted and documented. People often do great thinking in the heat of an argument. We should harness the anonymous arguments. Politicians should accept duels instead of televised debates. Limit the responses to 300 words and six references or something effective. I wish I had the money and health to clone twitter and do it but someone should do it. Both sides have to watch the arguments unfold so it brings observers and duelers closer to the truth rather than polarising them. The trick is in trusted auto verification of anonymous duelers and getting enough duels and spectators to make internet dueling a thing.