debator

5 ms·

1.
by debator 6y ago
Mmm...impartial curation is certainly difficult to find online. I also wonder how it is in today's political climate compared with 10 years ago - even with teachers. Probably the biggest challenge to the whole concept. I think any syst
2.
by debator 6y ago
Haha. Handling commonly repeated argument forms would be a good feature. Instead of a lengthy comment, just click the "fire in a crowded theater" rebuttal and save everyone some time.
3.
by debator 6y ago
> I don't think it's possible anymore to have thoughtful, intelligent political discussions online with both sides. I agree. And that makes it a problem worth solving. I just feel deeply that there is the right UX, and moderati
4.
by debator 6y ago
But you'll be back the next day. Can you be banned without the chamber voting on it in some way?
5.
by debator 6y ago
> Personally, I just acknowledge the selfish motive and use debating as a tool for bringing out ideas from others that I might not have thought of myself, so that I can then incorporate those ideas into my own mental framework of the top
6.
by debator 6y ago
What we need is people to be properly incentivized to win whilst arguing the opposing view. From this exercise you will come to understand your opponents view perfectly. But its a difficult exercise to do without the proper incentive. You c
7.
by debator 6y ago
Thanks for the link to arguman. Looks really interesting. I'm not the biggest fan of the visual tree and would prefer people not to stray from plain text entry as much as possible - but maybe of course this is not possible!
8.
by debator 6y ago
> you don't know who you are arguing with and you don't know what positions they actually hold. Good point. A lot of argumentation comes down to whether the arguments they make are consistent across similar arguments they make.
9.
by debator 6y ago
> Now if you just want to bring back the old art of rethoric instead of the negatively charged "political debates". You may have a bit more chance. This is the idea. > I think that's for the best, there are places other
10.
by debator 6y ago
Wouldn't it be great though if there was such a platform where you could lose your cool with someone without having to be banned, moderated, etc. The ad-hominem part of the argument would be simply flagged as such. Kind of like Westm
11.
by debator 6y ago
Yep, its always "you need to read this to understand", or here is a statistic that proves my point. > I think in-person can be good for very high level arguments, Its good for exploration. But there needs to be trust between th
12.
by debator 6y ago
> What I really want is for more people to make good faith efforts to make substantive arguments against their own opinions Agree! A big cause of the divide is that people don't understand each other's arguments. When you are i
13.
Ask HN: Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News to debate politics?
24 points by debator 6y ago|31 comments