...well the brexit vote was split nearly 50/50. The brexiteers were "counter establishment". Do you think the vote would have been 50/50 if better together ha

...well the brexit vote was split nearly 50/50. The brexiteers were "counter establishment". Do you think the vote would have been 50/50 if better together had run a campaign that was basically "We're Oxbridge-educated economists telling you that brexit is a folly, and Hannan is just a muppet whose wild claims it would be beneath us to respond to"? I'm not even saying that debate is a fruitful way of deciding anything. For me, it's a framework that frequently makes relevant information come to light. I also enjoy it as a kind of exercise regime to strengthen my intellectual muscle. Also: What's the alternative? If upvotes/downvotes on HN are just a "popularity contest of opinions", where's the fun in that? Popularity contests are an even worse way than civilised debate to decide anything, or to expose me to information it would be useful for me to get exposed to, or to help me exercise my intellectual muscle. They're just boring. And it's what's wrong with social media today: If HN is a popularity contest, and HN's majority opinions line up with mine, I will then be an HN-reader who enjoys reading on HN all the opinions I already hold. If they don't line up, it will be a frustrating experience for me to read HN, and I will then no longer be an HN-reader and find another online community whose opinions align better with my own. Where's the fun in that?