> [edit] I should expand this. Critical thinking isn't enough. Public debate is the second part. The ability to haul out an idea and flog it mercilessly until t

> [edit] I should expand this. Critical thinking isn't enough. Public debate is the second part. The ability to haul out an idea and flog it mercilessly until there is nothing left of it is how the US wound up with the Constitution it has. Men got together and debated until they all agreed. > We have a distinct lack of debate in the US, and free speech (especially "hate speech") is sequestered to the backwaters of the internet where it festers, grows, and gets increasingly radical. If we had public debate (not the name-calling propaganda you see in national cable news) many of those ideas would fizzle and die, people would abandon them and move on to other things. To me, this is THE elephant in the room, that no one can see (naturally, because it isn't there to be seen, like the dog that didn't bark). Problems that I see (there are surely many more): - 95%++ of the public would/may need some substantial training in multiple domains (logic, epistemology, psychology/mindfulness, etc) - although, 100% participation is not required, even 5% would be fantastic - no platform exists for conducting high quality, adequately complex debate (and if one was created, the odds of the founders being "pure" and uncompromisable seem not good) - this may be not to the advantage of various people in positions of power, so it may not be ~allowed to happen