Debate with AI? No thanks.
Thanks for the feedback on what could be confusing messaging. The debates happen between real people. The AI is used to create the debate launch page based on the debate organizer's prompt.
Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers
11–20 of 42 posts
Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers
#12The debates use famous names to get your attention, but when I click on the details of each debate it says "Pending" next to those famous names. Apparently none of these people have agreed to debate or possibly even know tickets are being sold to their debate. Selling (even pre-selling) tickets to debates between people who haven't agreed to participate in your debate is insanely misleading marketing.
That's a good point. Before a debater agrees to the debate, the debater is marked as "pending" on the debate page, but that could be made more clear on some other parts of the platform.
Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers
#13I don't want to discourage this idea, but I have to admit that I've lost interest in debates. It seems like a debate is not a search for the truth, but a form of public entertainment to see who wins. I wouldn't change my views based on the outcome of a debate. Then again I may be biased because I'm a terrible debater. On the other hand, my mom used to show off her debate medals from high school.
This is true for many modern-style debates on podcasts on television, but my goal is for Logosive to elevate debate to truth-seeking again.
One debate format I'd like to see on Logosive is asynchronous debate, similar to the Federalist Papers, where the debaters submit their positions and rebuttals to each other as written statements, over the course of weeks. I think this format could align with more of a truth-seeking type of debate, and Logosive can already support this format.
Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers
#14The debates use famous names to get your attention, but when I click on the details of each debate it says "Pending" next to those famous names. Apparently none of these people have agreed to debate or possibly even know tickets are being sold to their debate. Selling (even pre-selling) tickets to debates between people who haven't agreed to participate in your debate is insanely misleading marketing.
And if these people aren’t aware, they haven’t even signed off on the “position” they are supposed to be debating. I can’t imagine many public intellectuals would end up agreeing to debate in support of words that were put in their mouth. I think I get the idea of a kind of bounty on debate participation, but the logistics need more work.
Thanks for the feedback. One mechanism we can use to address this is to update the debate descriptions if the debaters have suggestions about how they'd like their positions described. Open to other ideas for this too, and I think we will figure out better approaches as we launch our first debates.
Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers
#15The debates use famous names to get your attention, but when I click on the details of each debate it says "Pending" next to those famous names. Apparently none of these people have agreed to debate or possibly even know tickets are being sold to their debate. Selling (even pre-selling) tickets to debates between people who haven't agreed to participate in your debate is insanely misleading marketing.
Charitable prediction: It'd only take 1 big name debate to happen for this idea to become viable. Once people know about it, and the most interesting debates get funded, the debate becomes like any other desirable speaking gig: a performance with a big paycheck and audience attached. Less charitably, however, as soon as Logosive takes off a bit, the existing debating venues (news channels, big podcasts, etc.) can jus…
First, thank you for the confidence about Logosive taking off.
You describe an interesting problem with the moat. I'm hoping we can be the choice venue for debates by providing the best debate creation and discovery experience and by also providing larger paychecks to debaters than news channels and podcasts could ever hope to provide to debaters, hosts, and debate promoters, through Logosive's funding mechanism and a large revenue share for all parties involved in the debate.
Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers
#16[deleted]
Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers
#17I don't want to discourage this idea, but I have to admit that I've lost interest in debates. It seems like a debate is not a search for the truth, but a form of public entertainment to see who wins. I wouldn't change my views based on the outcome of a debate. Then again I may be biased because I'm a terrible debater. On the other hand, my mom used to show off her debate medals from high school.
>I don't want to discourage this idea, but I have to admit that I've lost interest in debates. It seems like a debate is not a search for the truth, but a form of public entertainment to see who wins. I wouldn't change my views based on the outcome of a debate.
The last debate that changed my mind on anything was about 20 years ago. It was a structured debate regarding marriage equality. The negative team, included a wildcard, a poly bisexual woman, whose relationship would still be ignored by the government after the change. She argued, very successfully in my opinion, that moving the bar one step made no sense, and the government simply shouldnt have a favoured relationship status at all.
Since then I cant think of any. However, I also cant think of another proper structured debate I have seen.
Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers
#18I like this idea but I fear the population, in the US at least, is not able to process something like a debate effectively. Any given debate, if won decisively enough, could shutdown any discussion on the topic for a long time. Imagine if you got Jordan Peterson and he absolutely shut-down someone else. I don't think the audience will accept the idea that the other person may have just been a bad debater, or that the ideas that they debated still have merit. It would effectively end the discussion.
People love winners, not ideas. It's just more us-vs-them. Especially because the US population only ever sees the word "debate" when it comes to a political debate on a stage, and those are not debates.
Again, I love this idea in theory but I fear it's time has come and gone already.
Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers
#19I'd drop the AI part... Not sure why this is part of the platform.
Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers
#20[deleted]