6 ms·

The "Debate Me Bro" Grift: How Trolls Weaponized the Marketplace of Ideas

rolph 1y ago
AKA "come at me bro" "Kirk perfected this grift. As a recent detailed analysis of one of Kirk’s debates demonstrates, when a student showed up prepared with nuanced, well-researched arguments, Kirk immediately tried pivoting to culture war talking points and deflection tactics. When debaters tried to use Kirk’s own standards against him, he shifted subjects entirely. The goal was never understanding or persuasion—it was generating content for social media distribution."
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  - According to an unapologetically left wing perspective on what happened. That doesn't mean even a word of that is true, any more than a word of what Kirk said was true. Who is to say whether the college student's positions were actually nuanced? Is well-researched just "agreed with my perspective" or a fact? (Edit: I missed the hyperlink somehow, point still remains this is an interpretation dance.)
  - crtasm 1y ago
    It's a quote from TFA and links to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRLV5Is-Pc4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRLV5Is-Pc4
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - orwin 1y ago
    > this is an interpretation dance Honestly, to me once someone start to fight over semantics on words that are well understood, he is a grifter and does not deserve my time. He can't really make his point because his argument fell apart, and rather than integrating the critique on his argument to make it stronger or even (i've never seen it), changing his point of view, he has to comeback to semantics to remake the same argument without even thinking on how to integrate the critique. I'm not saying this guy is like that, i honestly don't watch US culture war (unless they critique the best Olympics ceremonies i've seen because they don't like/understand French culture) But i've seen some weird Jubilee videos, content about one of the current genocide, and i follow my country's politics. Often (not always), "debate bros" are just people who, when they lost the argument, start to debate over semantics. I'd rather listen to a poorly-informed student than listen to that kind of person.
    - TrnsltLife 1y ago
      > fight over semantics on words that are well understood Like "woman"?
      - orwin 1y ago
        Exactly. I don't care what semantic games you play. People who argue on semantics are uninteresting most of the time (unless the argument is about history basically, but even in this case, it's often a waste of time). If someone starts to argue with me and then ask me 'whats the true definition of X', i just tune him out. If he ask me "What did Paxton meant when he used the word 'collaboration' according to you?", then I'll talk with him, because I know he can have interesting and meaningful discussions.
ameliaquining 1y ago
I agree that bad-faith weaponization of discourse norms is a real problem these days. Unfortunately, unapologetic closed-mindedness is also a real problem these days. I would like to see more analysis that acknowledges both of these points and carefully considers how to thread the needle. Masnick obviously means well and is making reasonable points, but I think we're past the point in the discourse where it's possible to make progress while bringing up just one side of the tradeoff.
- tremon 1y ago
  Isn't both-sidesing also a bad-faith weaponization of discourse? Make your own argument rather than demanding someone else makes it for you.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - bawolff 1y ago
    I think its fine to be unconvinced by something without necessarily having a better argument. Usually when people say "both siding", its more refering to an ad hominem falacy where someone tries to counter an argument by pointing to something bad the other side does that is separate (and hence irrelavent) to the original argument. I dont think that is what the person who you are responding to is doing because what they are saying is directly applicable to the issue at hand.
    - tim333 1y ago
      When I've seen "both siding" used it usually is about treating both sides of an argument equally when one is obviously rubbish.
      - rocmcd 1y ago
        "obviously rubbish" is doing a lot of work here. How do you gauge whether something is obviously rubbish?
gjsman-1000 1y ago
TechDirt is unapologetically, wildly left wing, so of course calling the opposition "trolls" who "weaponize" the "marketplace of ideas" is nothing but a theatrical self-righteous take; at best a pot calling the kettle black, at worst a complete lack of self-awareness.
- p_j_w 1y ago
  Okay, but do you have a counter to the points they've made here?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bitlax 1y ago
[flagged]
jgalt212 1y ago
> gotcha questions specifically designed to enrage inexperienced college students Fair enough, but there are those who won't even engage with those ill-prepared to counter their ideas.
dvt 1y ago
> They earn legitimacy through evidence, peer review, and sustained engagement with reality. Someone is trying to talk about the marketplace of ideas without reasonably engaging with Mill[1]. The positing of an idea being viable if and only if passing "peer review" is beyond ridiculous from a purely Millian standpoint. In his own words[2]: > ...though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. I agree that CK was a political grifter (e.g. someone that found great wealth by partaking in inflammatory speech), but the marketplace of ideas allows for people like him to engage in any dialog he pleases. After all, TMZ does the same thing. Tabloids do the same thing. Tons of podcasts do the same thing. Hasan Piker, Destiny, Piers Morgan, Bill O'Reilly, and Alex Jones all do it, too. I may not agree with Charlie Kirk's politics or with his rhetorical methods, but I'll defend his right of free speech to the death. > It requires shared standards of evidence, mutual respect, and actual expertise on the topics being discussed. No it doesn't. This is a carefully-crafted contingency to ensure that you always have the higher ground via: "you're not an expert" (when experts can be, and sometimes are, wrong) or "you don't have the same standard or evidence as me" (when standards of evidence are often contextual). [1] https://web.uncg.edu/dcl/courses/vicecrime/m3/part1.asp https://web.uncg.edu/dcl/courses/vicecrime/m3/part1.asp [2] https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Western_Washington_University/Introduction_to_Political_Theory_I/01%3A_Readings/1.11%3A_John_Stuart_Mill__Excerpts_from_On_Liberty_1859 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Western_Washington_...
- object-a 1y ago
  If we define truth as "Whatever a majority happens to agree with" and the marketplace of ideas as a contest to create truth by building a majority consensus, then you're correct. If we define truth as something real, and something that we determine based on evidence and correspondence with reality, then you absolutely need some shared epistemological standards for what constitutes evidence and correspondence. I'm not sure if you need peer review for everything, but building expertise in those epistemological standards and approaches _is_ a requirement for well functioning marketplace of ideas, especially if our goal is to develop and understand the truth. This is distinct from free speech -- I wouldn't want to impose restrictions on one's ability to speak, but that's not the same as saying all speech is equally valid in the pursuit of truth.
Lucent 1y ago
Rather than "hurting America," Crossfire was the highest form of political debate America could suffer before retreating into info bubbles.
nbevans 1y ago
Regardless of whether he was grifting or not, he still didn't deserve what happened to him. Nobody apart from serious criminals or warlords deserve that. He was neither. Why not just embarrass him in a viral stunt. Nobody even tried to do that. They leaped all the way from 0 to 11 by shooting him dead.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  You are complaining that the mentally ill assassin did not used measured steps to redress grievances?
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    Who is to say they were mentally ill? Major left wing streamers openly were calling for violence before it happened. TechDirt's position conveniently ignores this. Kirk being a charlatan, even if that were true, is small potatoes. https://x.com/Rightanglenews/status/1966264506486853810 https://x.com/Rightanglenews/status/1966264506486853810 Edit: Downvoters, if that wasn't calls to violence, especially at the end, post it on HN on a reply. I dare you to be consistent on your vote.
    - orwin 1y ago
      Look, i checked the first 20 seconds, it's called a "spun metaphor", even if poorly done. Basically, this guy (with a grating voice tbh), calls democrats to "show some gut" then "you need to be gutting them" and "shank them and let their intestine drop on stage". It's obviously cut to look inflamatory, but be honest, do you really think he calls for democrats to _literally_ gut republicans? Or, and i don't know about eitehr this long-hair guy or the context, he was talking about a US debate democrats just lost because they showed no heart and refused to reach for the jugular after a successful initial attack, on a debate show? Because, and again, not a native speaker, not from the US, don't know about it, i might be too charitable, it looks to be to be missing a lot of context. Was it recent? was it during the election cycle? To me its very, very suspicious that an editing like this comes out just now, it seems like a hit job.
damnesian 1y ago
>When you agree to debate someone pushing long-debunked conspiracy theories or openly hateful ideologies, you’re implicitly suggesting that their position deserves equal consideration alongside established facts and expert analysis. Oh good, then my usual strategy of completely ignoring these types is the correct response.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  No, it's inadequate, if others are listening to those types. Then you have to disinfect the people around you, or else suffer the consequences of them believing the nonsense.
AlexandrB 1y ago
Still better than "educate yourself", or "do better", which is what you often get when you start to ask questions of someone proclaiming extreme left wing ideas. Edit: Also, what's the deal with calling everyone a "grifter"? I see no evidence that Charlie Kirk was insincere about what he believed, where's the "grifting"? Isn't any kind of political activity for pay "grifting" by this standard?
- woah 1y ago
  Whether or not it's grifting depends on whether you agree with the political stance
xg15 1y ago
Ancient Greece called and wants its sophistry back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist
niam 1y ago
In-person "debate" is probably a really bad vehicle for truth-finding to begin with. Surely if disagreement emerges about something: it makes sense to "debate" in some sense of the word. But only insofar as that's indistinguishable from "trying to reach a mutual conclusion." The other use of that word — what we see in televised debates or these little Kirklike pop up stands — is where both sides are predisposed/rooted in some opinion and are instead vying over an audience (real or imagined). It's a social exercise masquerading as an intellectual one. Which, to be fair, is maybe an exercise worth engaging for a prospective president, but that nuance is lost in how we treat them.
- AlexandrB 1y ago
  > In-person "debate" is probably a really bad vehicle for truth-finding to begin with. I don't think that's its purpose. At its best, having your ideas challenged helps you sharpen and refine them so they're more nuanced and persuasive. But at a minimum it helps you understand what rhetoric works and what doesn't.
bawolff 1y ago
I think the fundamental problem is nobody does formal debates with rules and moderators (who actually do their job). Its not like falacious arguments and bad faith rhetoric is a new phenomenon. They've been with us since the beginning of time. They are problems we have solutions to.
- hacknewslogin 1y ago
  You might find Cambridge union to be refreshing. https://www.youtube.com/@cambridgeunionsoc1815 https://www.youtube.com/@cambridgeunionsoc1815
- xg15 1y ago
  With fair rules and moderators. Political talk shows in German TV almost always have a moderator, yet they rarely intervene when people cut each other off or talk over each other - but they will immediately if a person takes too long to elaborate their point or touches subjects that are scheduled for a later part of the show. That kind of moderation encourages bad-faith behavior instead of preventing it.
- AlexandrB 1y ago
  I think Jubilee and Munk Debates try to do this. The problem is that a super formal debate like what you're suggesting might be quite dry and boring for most people to watch so it wouldn't get a lot of viewership.
  - bawolff 1y ago
    True, which is the fundamental problem - people like bad faith debate a lot more than good faith. The issue isn't that people engage in it, but that the crowds eat it up.
woah 1y ago
> one of the most successful architects of “debate me bro” culture—a particularly toxic form of intellectual harassment that has become endemic to our political discourse I'm not a fan of the national month of mourning for a b-list podcaster that the right is trying to institute but this is just disingenuous. "Toxic"? "Intellectual harassment"? Does the article's author think that standards of debate were any kinder and gentler in ancient Athens, the Roman Republic, British Parliament, revolutionary era United States, leftist Russian revolutionaries (until they stamped out any debate), etc?
sherburt3 1y ago
I’d rather deal with intellectually dishonest argumentation than live in a walled garden where only certain opinions are acceptable.
- jfengel 1y ago
  Interesting. Not me. Intellectually dishonest argumentation cannot avoid ending in falsehood. By design it grows to consume all available time. A walled garden, if constructed in good faith, has at least the potential to find truth. I suspect that we're really both just contrasting best-case and worst-case scenarios for our preferred positions. What ends up actually happening is a mix of both.
evanjrowley 1y ago
IMHO, the most insightful comment on that article came from Arianity at September 17, 2025 at 12:34 pm: >> This is exactly backwards from how the actual “marketplace of ideas” is supposed to work. > Fundamentally, it’s not actually a marketplace, and the analogy starts to break down. One of my crank takes for awhile has been we should retire the term. It gives people a false sense of the inevitability of good ideas winning out. >> The format actively discourages the kind of thoughtful, nuanced discussion that might actually change minds—the kind actually designed for persuasion > I think you’re underselling this, a bit. Kirk wasn’t in the business (just) for money. It’s because those viral clips can persuade people. There’s a lot of people you can win over with zingers. Spectacle is persuasion. It shouldn’t be, but it is effective. >> Klein is inadvertently endorsing a grift > I don’t think it’s inadvertent, he’s smart enough to know better. In the circles he cares about, it’s better to be seen as “open minded” and “bipartisan” than accurate, even if it means inventing a legitimate counterparty that doesn’t exist. it’s toxic, and it’s precisely the tic Kirk exploited.
cadamsdotcom 1y ago
> specifically designed to enrage inexperienced college students so he could generate viral social media clips of himself “owning the libs.” The author is describing a symptom of modern society: “viral video clips” are the most powerful way of building an audience right now. They’re powerful for getting re-shares but lack nuance and are dangerously prone to misinterpretation. As a society we need more and better ways to engage and debate ideas. People are coming around to the idea that a soundbite doesn’t cut it for a complex issue, which is good. But platforms haven’t caught up - so predictably we shoot the messenger.
josefritzishere 1y ago
I think who is funding the troll is the most crucial detail here. If it's funded by opolitical activists like Koch to the tune of 90M annually that ceases to be a marketplace and really just a propaganda platform.
ValveFan6969 1y ago
"Grift" is becoming another one of "those" words...
xtiansimon 1y ago
> “The format…rewards the most inflammatory takes, the most emotionally manipulative tactics, and the most viral-ready soundbites. Anyone going into these situations with good faith gets steamrolled by participants who understand they’re playing a different game entirely.” This seems to be the permanent _mode_ for the president (and all the appointees who manage to hold their positions). I’ve hypothesized this is why the movement is so popular. Members want to learn the patterns because the bullying and trolling “wins”. But you can’t argue this way within your group/tribe. It’s too demeaning, and undermining of people’s identity/self-worth. And so, the president continually manufactures outsiders and targets. Publicly with personal attacks, and more recently (totally unscientific conclusion) it’s all “democrats” (democratic party). Copy these arguments and win. Practice on these targets. Never target the group (and conveniently, never introspect/question your own actions). What is this? A cult? The second thing interesting in the article, “The “debate me bro” playbook is simple and effective…” Reading the list of steps immediately give me the idea of an algorithm. We’ve struggled with the idea of the Social Media algorithm for years now. What’s the difference between “the algorithm” and the “playbook”?

AKA "come at me bro" "Kirk perfected this grift. As a recent detailed analysis of one of Kirk’s debates demonstrates, when a student showed up prepared with nuanced, well-researched arguments, Kirk immediately tried pivoting to culture war talking points and deflection tactics. When debaters tried to use Kirk’s own standards against him, he shifted subjects entirely. The goal was never understanding or persuasion—it was generating content for social media distribution."

gjsman-1000 1y ago
- According to an unapologetically left wing perspective on what happened. That doesn't mean even a word of that is true, any more than a word of what Kirk said was true. Who is to say whether the college student's positions were actually nuanced? Is well-researched just "agreed with my perspective" or a fact? (Edit: I missed the hyperlink somehow, point still remains this is an interpretation dance.)
- crtasm 1y ago
  It's a quote from TFA and links to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRLV5Is-Pc4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRLV5Is-Pc4
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- orwin 1y ago
  > this is an interpretation dance Honestly, to me once someone start to fight over semantics on words that are well understood, he is a grifter and does not deserve my time. He can't really make his point because his argument fell apart, and rather than integrating the critique on his argument to make it stronger or even (i've never seen it), changing his point of view, he has to comeback to semantics to remake the same argument without even thinking on how to integrate the critique. I'm not saying this guy is like that, i honestly don't watch US culture war (unless they critique the best Olympics ceremonies i've seen because they don't like/understand French culture) But i've seen some weird Jubilee videos, content about one of the current genocide, and i follow my country's politics. Often (not always), "debate bros" are just people who, when they lost the argument, start to debate over semantics. I'd rather listen to a poorly-informed student than listen to that kind of person.
  - TrnsltLife 1y ago
    > fight over semantics on words that are well understood Like "woman"?
    - orwin 1y ago
      Exactly. I don't care what semantic games you play. People who argue on semantics are uninteresting most of the time (unless the argument is about history basically, but even in this case, it's often a waste of time). If someone starts to argue with me and then ask me 'whats the true definition of X', i just tune him out. If he ask me "What did Paxton meant when he used the word 'collaboration' according to you?", then I'll talk with him, because I know he can have interesting and meaningful discussions.

ameliaquining 1y ago

I agree that bad-faith weaponization of discourse norms is a real problem these days. Unfortunately, unapologetic closed-mindedness is also a real problem these days. I would like to see more analysis that acknowledges both of these points and carefully considers how to thread the needle. Masnick obviously means well and is making reasonable points, but I think we're past the point in the discourse where it's possible to make progress while bringing up just one side of the tradeoff.

tremon 1y ago
Isn't both-sidesing also a bad-faith weaponization of discourse? Make your own argument rather than demanding someone else makes it for you.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- bawolff 1y ago
  I think its fine to be unconvinced by something without necessarily having a better argument. Usually when people say "both siding", its more refering to an ad hominem falacy where someone tries to counter an argument by pointing to something bad the other side does that is separate (and hence irrelavent) to the original argument. I dont think that is what the person who you are responding to is doing because what they are saying is directly applicable to the issue at hand.
  - tim333 1y ago
    When I've seen "both siding" used it usually is about treating both sides of an argument equally when one is obviously rubbish.
    - rocmcd 1y ago
      "obviously rubbish" is doing a lot of work here. How do you gauge whether something is obviously rubbish?

gjsman-1000 1y ago

TechDirt is unapologetically, wildly left wing, so of course calling the opposition "trolls" who "weaponize" the "marketplace of ideas" is nothing but a theatrical self-righteous take; at best a pot calling the kettle black, at worst a complete lack of self-awareness.

p_j_w 1y ago
Okay, but do you have a counter to the points they've made here?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

bitlax 1y ago

[flagged]

jgalt212 1y ago

> gotcha questions specifically designed to enrage inexperienced college students Fair enough, but there are those who won't even engage with those ill-prepared to counter their ideas.

dvt 1y ago

> They earn legitimacy through evidence, peer review, and sustained engagement with reality. Someone is trying to talk about the marketplace of ideas without reasonably engaging with Mill[1]. The positing of an idea being viable if and only if passing "peer review" is beyond ridiculous from a purely Millian standpoint. In his own words[2]: > ...though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. I agree that CK was a political grifter (e.g. someone that found great wealth by partaking in inflammatory speech), but the marketplace of ideas allows for people like him to engage in any dialog he pleases. After all, TMZ does the same thing. Tabloids do the same thing. Tons of podcasts do the same thing. Hasan Piker, Destiny, Piers Morgan, Bill O'Reilly, and Alex Jones all do it, too. I may not agree with Charlie Kirk's politics or with his rhetorical methods, but I'll defend his right of free speech to the death. > It requires shared standards of evidence, mutual respect, and actual expertise on the topics being discussed. No it doesn't. This is a carefully-crafted contingency to ensure that you always have the higher ground via: "you're not an expert" (when experts can be, and sometimes are, wrong) or "you don't have the same standard or evidence as me" (when standards of evidence are often contextual). [1] https://web.uncg.edu/dcl/courses/vicecrime/m3/part1.asp https://web.uncg.edu/dcl/courses/vicecrime/m3/part1.asp [2] https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Western_Washington_University/Introduction_to_Political_Theory_I/01%3A_Readings/1.11%3A_John_Stuart_Mill__Excerpts_from_On_Liberty_1859 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Western_Washington_...

object-a 1y ago
If we define truth as "Whatever a majority happens to agree with" and the marketplace of ideas as a contest to create truth by building a majority consensus, then you're correct. If we define truth as something real, and something that we determine based on evidence and correspondence with reality, then you absolutely need some shared epistemological standards for what constitutes evidence and correspondence. I'm not sure if you need peer review for everything, but building expertise in those epistemological standards and approaches _is_ a requirement for well functioning marketplace of ideas, especially if our goal is to develop and understand the truth. This is distinct from free speech -- I wouldn't want to impose restrictions on one's ability to speak, but that's not the same as saying all speech is equally valid in the pursuit of truth.

Lucent 1y ago

Rather than "hurting America," Crossfire was the highest form of political debate America could suffer before retreating into info bubbles.

nbevans 1y ago

Regardless of whether he was grifting or not, he still didn't deserve what happened to him. Nobody apart from serious criminals or warlords deserve that. He was neither. Why not just embarrass him in a viral stunt. Nobody even tried to do that. They leaped all the way from 0 to 11 by shooting him dead.

IAmBroom 1y ago
You are complaining that the mentally ill assassin did not used measured steps to redress grievances?
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  Who is to say they were mentally ill? Major left wing streamers openly were calling for violence before it happened. TechDirt's position conveniently ignores this. Kirk being a charlatan, even if that were true, is small potatoes. https://x.com/Rightanglenews/status/1966264506486853810 https://x.com/Rightanglenews/status/1966264506486853810 Edit: Downvoters, if that wasn't calls to violence, especially at the end, post it on HN on a reply. I dare you to be consistent on your vote.
  - orwin 1y ago
    Look, i checked the first 20 seconds, it's called a "spun metaphor", even if poorly done. Basically, this guy (with a grating voice tbh), calls democrats to "show some gut" then "you need to be gutting them" and "shank them and let their intestine drop on stage". It's obviously cut to look inflamatory, but be honest, do you really think he calls for democrats to _literally_ gut republicans? Or, and i don't know about eitehr this long-hair guy or the context, he was talking about a US debate democrats just lost because they showed no heart and refused to reach for the jugular after a successful initial attack, on a debate show? Because, and again, not a native speaker, not from the US, don't know about it, i might be too charitable, it looks to be to be missing a lot of context. Was it recent? was it during the election cycle? To me its very, very suspicious that an editing like this comes out just now, it seems like a hit job.

damnesian 1y ago

>When you agree to debate someone pushing long-debunked conspiracy theories or openly hateful ideologies, you’re implicitly suggesting that their position deserves equal consideration alongside established facts and expert analysis. Oh good, then my usual strategy of completely ignoring these types is the correct response.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
No, it's inadequate, if others are listening to those types. Then you have to disinfect the people around you, or else suffer the consequences of them believing the nonsense.

AlexandrB 1y ago

Still better than "educate yourself", or "do better", which is what you often get when you start to ask questions of someone proclaiming extreme left wing ideas. Edit: Also, what's the deal with calling everyone a "grifter"? I see no evidence that Charlie Kirk was insincere about what he believed, where's the "grifting"? Isn't any kind of political activity for pay "grifting" by this standard?

woah 1y ago
Whether or not it's grifting depends on whether you agree with the political stance

xg15 1y ago

Ancient Greece called and wants its sophistry back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist

niam 1y ago

In-person "debate" is probably a really bad vehicle for truth-finding to begin with. Surely if disagreement emerges about something: it makes sense to "debate" in some sense of the word. But only insofar as that's indistinguishable from "trying to reach a mutual conclusion." The other use of that word — what we see in televised debates or these little Kirklike pop up stands — is where both sides are predisposed/rooted in some opinion and are instead vying over an audience (real or imagined). It's a social exercise masquerading as an intellectual one. Which, to be fair, is maybe an exercise worth engaging for a prospective president, but that nuance is lost in how we treat them.

AlexandrB 1y ago
> In-person "debate" is probably a really bad vehicle for truth-finding to begin with. I don't think that's its purpose. At its best, having your ideas challenged helps you sharpen and refine them so they're more nuanced and persuasive. But at a minimum it helps you understand what rhetoric works and what doesn't.

bawolff 1y ago

I think the fundamental problem is nobody does formal debates with rules and moderators (who actually do their job). Its not like falacious arguments and bad faith rhetoric is a new phenomenon. They've been with us since the beginning of time. They are problems we have solutions to.

hacknewslogin 1y ago
You might find Cambridge union to be refreshing. https://www.youtube.com/@cambridgeunionsoc1815 https://www.youtube.com/@cambridgeunionsoc1815
xg15 1y ago
With fair rules and moderators. Political talk shows in German TV almost always have a moderator, yet they rarely intervene when people cut each other off or talk over each other - but they will immediately if a person takes too long to elaborate their point or touches subjects that are scheduled for a later part of the show. That kind of moderation encourages bad-faith behavior instead of preventing it.
AlexandrB 1y ago
I think Jubilee and Munk Debates try to do this. The problem is that a super formal debate like what you're suggesting might be quite dry and boring for most people to watch so it wouldn't get a lot of viewership.
- bawolff 1y ago
  True, which is the fundamental problem - people like bad faith debate a lot more than good faith. The issue isn't that people engage in it, but that the crowds eat it up.

woah 1y ago

> one of the most successful architects of “debate me bro” culture—a particularly toxic form of intellectual harassment that has become endemic to our political discourse I'm not a fan of the national month of mourning for a b-list podcaster that the right is trying to institute but this is just disingenuous. "Toxic"? "Intellectual harassment"? Does the article's author think that standards of debate were any kinder and gentler in ancient Athens, the Roman Republic, British Parliament, revolutionary era United States, leftist Russian revolutionaries (until they stamped out any debate), etc?

sherburt3 1y ago

I’d rather deal with intellectually dishonest argumentation than live in a walled garden where only certain opinions are acceptable.

jfengel 1y ago
Interesting. Not me. Intellectually dishonest argumentation cannot avoid ending in falsehood. By design it grows to consume all available time. A walled garden, if constructed in good faith, has at least the potential to find truth. I suspect that we're really both just contrasting best-case and worst-case scenarios for our preferred positions. What ends up actually happening is a mix of both.

evanjrowley 1y ago

IMHO, the most insightful comment on that article came from Arianity at September 17, 2025 at 12:34 pm: >> This is exactly backwards from how the actual “marketplace of ideas” is supposed to work. > Fundamentally, it’s not actually a marketplace, and the analogy starts to break down. One of my crank takes for awhile has been we should retire the term. It gives people a false sense of the inevitability of good ideas winning out. >> The format actively discourages the kind of thoughtful, nuanced discussion that might actually change minds—the kind actually designed for persuasion > I think you’re underselling this, a bit. Kirk wasn’t in the business (just) for money. It’s because those viral clips can persuade people. There’s a lot of people you can win over with zingers. Spectacle is persuasion. It shouldn’t be, but it is effective. >> Klein is inadvertently endorsing a grift > I don’t think it’s inadvertent, he’s smart enough to know better. In the circles he cares about, it’s better to be seen as “open minded” and “bipartisan” than accurate, even if it means inventing a legitimate counterparty that doesn’t exist. it’s toxic, and it’s precisely the tic Kirk exploited.

cadamsdotcom 1y ago

> specifically designed to enrage inexperienced college students so he could generate viral social media clips of himself “owning the libs.” The author is describing a symptom of modern society: “viral video clips” are the most powerful way of building an audience right now. They’re powerful for getting re-shares but lack nuance and are dangerously prone to misinterpretation. As a society we need more and better ways to engage and debate ideas. People are coming around to the idea that a soundbite doesn’t cut it for a complex issue, which is good. But platforms haven’t caught up - so predictably we shoot the messenger.

josefritzishere 1y ago

I think who is funding the troll is the most crucial detail here. If it's funded by opolitical activists like Koch to the tune of 90M annually that ceases to be a marketplace and really just a propaganda platform.

ValveFan6969 1y ago

"Grift" is becoming another one of "those" words...

xtiansimon 1y ago

> “The format…rewards the most inflammatory takes, the most emotionally manipulative tactics, and the most viral-ready soundbites. Anyone going into these situations with good faith gets steamrolled by participants who understand they’re playing a different game entirely.” This seems to be the permanent _mode_ for the president (and all the appointees who manage to hold their positions). I’ve hypothesized this is why the movement is so popular. Members want to learn the patterns because the bullying and trolling “wins”. But you can’t argue this way within your group/tribe. It’s too demeaning, and undermining of people’s identity/self-worth. And so, the president continually manufactures outsiders and targets. Publicly with personal attacks, and more recently (totally unscientific conclusion) it’s all “democrats” (democratic party). Copy these arguments and win. Practice on these targets. Never target the group (and conveniently, never introspect/question your own actions). What is this? A cult? The second thing interesting in the article, “The “debate me bro” playbook is simple and effective…” Reading the list of steps immediately give me the idea of an algorithm. We’ve struggled with the idea of the Social Media algorithm for years now. What’s the difference between “the algorithm” and the “playbook”?