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

Ask HN: Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News to debate politics?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 36 posts

Re: Ask HN: Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News to debate politics?

#21

Post by metiscus »

debator wrote: post #17
surfer7837 wrote: post #4

Debates should be in person, I don't think the Internet is the best medium for it. Feel free to disagree with me, but it's a lot harder to lose your cool in person compared to online

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 Westminster parlimentary debate - insults fly all the time, but no one can be cancelled or banned.

You can be asked to leave for the remainder of the day under the standing rules if you violate certain points of etiquette.

Re: Ask HN: Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News to debate politics?

#22

Post by debator »

rvz wrote: post #3

> Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News to debate politics? I would. It should allow arguments from across the political spectrum to be heard and having their claims and evidence fact-checked from various sources whilst presenting their arguments. I think you may be certainly interested in this platform: Arguman (an argument analysis platform), unless you have already looked at it. [0] > I want to bring back th…

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!

Re: Ask HN: Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News to debate politics?

#23

Post by debator »

emptysongglass wrote: post #8

I just don't think that debate is a good tool for getting sympathy for one's ideas. Look at how we are here on HN with the CCP is bad/CCP is vilified debate. No one is going to convince me that the CCP isn't committing genocide and I'm not going to convince anyone that the CCP is. (Dang, this is not me trying to start a nationalistic flamewar: I actually deleted a comment I wrote earlier after reflecting on what it w…

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 can't just say "congrats you won...because the side you had is right". You have to want to win. You would be forced to empathize with the other's situation.

For me, lack of understanding of the other side's argument is the biggest problem with discourse today.

Re: Ask HN: Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News to debate politics?

#24

Post by debator »

lhorie wrote: post #14
emptysongglass wrote: post #8

I just don't think that debate is a good tool for getting sympathy for one's ideas. Look at how we are here on HN with the CCP is bad/CCP is vilified debate. No one is going to convince me that the CCP isn't committing genocide and I'm not going to convince anyone that the CCP is. (Dang, this is not me trying to start a nationalistic flamewar: I actually deleted a comment I wrote earlier after reflecting on what it w…

I think the question to ask is "what would someone gain from getting convinced about some specific statement?" In your CCP example: I gain nothing by getting convinced one way or the other, and neither does anyone in China gain or lose anything from me getting convinced. Unlike you and your wife's relationship, you and I don't even truly care if we sympathize with each other or not (us being internet strangers and al…

> 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 topic.

I think that is most people's motive though and it can be mutually beneficial. I think there is an innate satisfaction in acquiring new knowledge or a new perspective. And the applications of this can be very wide-reaching.

> "what would someone gain from getting convinced about some specific statement?"

If you can bring someone in from a political extreme then that is making the world a better place.

Re: Ask HN: Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News to debate politics?

#25

Post by debator »

metiscus wrote: post #21
debator wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Westminster parlimentary debate - insults fly all the time, but no one can be cancelled or banned.

You can be asked to leave for the remainder of the day under the standing rules if you violate certain points of etiquette.

But you'll be back the next day. Can you be banned without the chamber voting on it in some way?

Re: Ask HN: Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News to debate politics?

#26

Post by debator »

nodesocket wrote: post #5

Here is the problem, people herd to communities that embrace their own ideology and beliefs. This has only gotten exponentially worse in the last four years. Conservative / libertarian ideas are mostly downvoted, oppressed, blasted, brushed away on left leaning sites and left leaning ideology the same on conservative / libertarian sites. The echo chamber and mob mentality problem. I don't think it's possible anymore…

> 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 moderation knobs to tweak that can bring it back from the brink.

Re: Ask HN: Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News to debate politics?

#27

Post by debator »

psyc wrote: post #6

I’m on board provided you automatically text-replace stuff like “your right to swing your fist ends where...”, “fire in a crowded theater”, “private companies can do what they want”, “free speech isn’t absolute”, etc with hilarious statements that make the commenter look foolish.

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.

Re: Ask HN: Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News to debate politics?

#28

Post by debator »

lhorie wrote: post #18
debator wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 in a debate club, the side you have to debate for is decided by a coin flip. And there is no better way to truly understand the other point of view than when you try your hardest to win a debate…

Yeah, debate clubs often have many of the elements I alluded to. Re: curation - In school settings, for example, the curation is done by the teacher (rather than the students who are actively trying to "win" the argument). Curation is needed to avoid redundancy and to ensure factuality. Impartiality is needed in order to not alienate the parties: it undermines respect for the tool if one allows loaded keywords to be…

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 system needs to be designed without a reliance on such an authority. But then all you have is some kind of voting or reputation system. How do you develop a karma system optimized for impartiality - that's something for me to sleep on.

> people would be teamed up so as to collaboratively come up with the strongest argument against their own beliefs.

Awesome idea. Will definitely think on this!

Re: Ask HN: Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News to debate politics?

#29

Post by metiscus »

debator wrote: post #25
metiscus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be asked to leave for the remainder of the day under the standing rules if you violate certain points of etiquette.

But you'll be back the next day. Can you be banned without the chamber voting on it in some way?

See standing rules 42 through 46 but in particular 44 (2) which reads

If any Member be suspended under paragraph (1) of this order, his suspension on the first occasion shall continue for five sitting days, and on the second occasion for twenty sitting days, including in either case the day on which he was suspended, but, on any subsequent occasion, until the House shall resolve that the suspension of such Member do terminate.

I believe this can only be done in response to a motion and vote. The authority to unilaterally order a member to withdraw is only for one day see 43. So you are correct.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/stan...

Re: Ask HN: Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News to debate politics?

#30

Post by goldenManatee »

debator wrote: post #17
surfer7837 wrote: post #4

Debates should be in person, I don't think the Internet is the best medium for it. Feel free to disagree with me, but it's a lot harder to lose your cool in person compared to online

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 Westminster parlimentary debate - insults fly all the time, but no one can be cancelled or banned.

No. Unmoderated and anonymous dialog has a way of straying into mudslinging on subjects of political expression. From your suggestion: flagging the “ad hominem part” is moderation and could be open to interpretation if flagged statements are or not. Thus brings to mind Burke, “The majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority.” True as that is, though, there’s been a growing popularization across groups for adopting a victimhood complex to feel justified in claiming oppression. So, no - ironic to post here, but actually cogent debate requires a base degree of mutual respect - which requires a shared (global) “culture” - and less anonymity.
Post reply on HN