Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers

logosive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers

#21

Post by esseph »

analog31 wrote: post #5

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. 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.

Searches for truth are left to academic papers.

Debates are pure entertainment, often misunderstood as fact, and often purely to manipulate.

Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers

#22

Post by mcastle »

Garlef wrote: post #19

I'd drop the AI part... Not sure why this is part of the platform.

AI is used on the debate creation form on the homepage to generate the debate description and to suggest debaters or topics based on debaters. Alternatively, there’s a manual debate creation flow, but most users start with the AI prompt then edit the output of the AI-generated debate details.

Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers

#23

Post by mcastle »

danudey wrote: post #10
analog31 wrote: post #5

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. 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.

Not to mention that a lot of these public 'debates' about topics unfairly give time and energy to perspectives which do not deserve them. For example, 99% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and human-caused, but - oh! - we need to be fair and balanced so we'll give time to the other side that has tons of untested and unproven crackpot theories about maybe that's just what climates do and we just…

Thanks for these considerations. I think even if a debate doesn’t help arrive at an ultimate truth, it can still be beneficial as a substrate for revealing important questions that can then provide a deeper or more nuanced understanding of a given topic.

Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers

#24

Post by gruez »

danudey wrote: post #10
analog31 wrote: post #5

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. 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.

Not to mention that a lot of these public 'debates' about topics unfairly give time and energy to perspectives which do not deserve them. For example, 99% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and human-caused, but - oh! - we need to be fair and balanced so we'll give time to the other side that has tons of untested and unproven crackpot theories about maybe that's just what climates do and we just…

>The headline example on their site is 'are seed oils healthy?' Assuming an agreed-upon definition of 'healthy', this shouldn't be a debate. Are they good for you in moderation or not? Let's look at the science. Oh, they're fine? Great, debate over.

The problem is that in any contentious topic where the science isn't definitive, each side will latch onto whatever ambiguous studies that favors their position. For seed oils it's various studies showing "inflammation", and ad-hominem on how opposing studies are funded by big oil (or whatever). Or think about how during the pandemic, there was conflicting evidence on whether masks worked, or whether ivermectin cured covid. We now have a much better understanding, but at the start of the pandemic there was weak evidence both ways.

Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers

#25

Post by bigthymer »

Aurornis wrote: post #4

The 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.

> Selling (even pre-selling) tickets to debates between people who haven't agreed to participate in your debate is insanely misleading marketing.

When I initially read your comment, I agreed with it. But, on second thought, if the site is presented as a sort of Kickstarter for debates where people are funding something they hope will happen, I think it might work. It is important that this is clearly communicated though.

Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers

#26

Post by gruez »

There are already organizations like Open to Debate and The Munk Debates organizing and publishing debates. What are you doing differently than them, aside from allowing users to suggest topics and giving them a cut? I feel like coming up with topics is probably the easiest part of the process. All you need is a vague pulse on what's in the news cycle, or ask a LLM.

Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers

#27

Post by mcastle »

techgnosis wrote: post #18

I 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…

Thanks so much for your support and perspective. I’ve seen some debates where one debater dominates, but so far it hasn’t ended discussion of the given topic but has rather led to more questions raised for discussion in future debates. But I could see an outcome where it does end the discussion for some amount of time.

I’ve also seen a surge of interest in debate outside just political debate, especially on platforms like Jubilee, podcasts, and X spaces.

Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers

#28

Post by mcastle »

bigthymer wrote: post #25
Aurornis wrote: post #4

The 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.

> Selling (even pre-selling) tickets to debates between people who haven't agreed to participate in your debate is insanely misleading marketing. When I initially read your comment, I agreed with it. But, on second thought, if the site is presented as a sort of Kickstarter for debates where people are funding something they hope will happen, I think it might work. It is important that this is clearly communicated tho…

Thanks for the feedback. I’ll update the messaging to make this more clear.

Re: Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers

#30

Post by dangus »

mcastle wrote: post #28
bigthymer wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Selling (even pre-selling) tickets to debates between people who haven't agreed to participate in your debate is insanely misleading marketing. When I initially read your comment, I agreed with it. But, on second thought, if the site is presented as a sort of Kickstarter for debates where people are funding something they hope will happen, I think it might work. It is important that this is clearly communicated tho…

Thanks for the feedback. I’ll update the messaging to make this more clear.

You’ve made a tech platform but you should just make content.

This won’t work out for you because you’ve designed it to be as close to a valueless middleman as possible. I don’t blame you as it’s a nice business model…when it works.

You sit back and do nothing while your community does all the work that a normal media company would do: coming up with content ideas, executive producing, and even doing the technical work of delivering the content if I’m reading your ToS right.

You used tech to solve a problem that isn’t tech related at all. You started with a decent vision statement for what you want the world to have more of, but you chose a hammer when your problem is a screw.

I think you’re more likely to realize this end goal by making a YouTube channel or whatever other social media profiles, do the hard work of consistently putting out debate content, and grow that audience organically to the point where you can actually invite well-known experts to make content with you.

Post reply on HN