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

1–10 of 42 posts

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

#1

Post by mcastle »

Hey HN, I built Logosive because I want to see certain debates between my favorite thinkers (especially in health/wellness, tech, and public policy), but there's no way for regular people to make these happen.

With Logosive, you propose a debate topic and debaters. We then handle outreach, ticket sales, and logistics. After the debate, ticket revenue is split between everyone involved, including the person that proposed the debate, the debaters, and the host.

Logosive is built with Django, htmx, and Alpine.js. Claude generates the debate launch pages, including suggesting debaters or debate topics, all from a single prompt (but the debates happen between real debaters).

I’m now looking for help launching new debates, so if you have any topics or people you really want to see debate, please submit them at https://logosive.com.

Thanks!

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

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

#4

Post by Aurornis »

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.

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

#5

Post by analog31 »

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.

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

#6

Post by andy99 »

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.

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.

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

#7

Post by andy99 »

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.

I don’t think there are many debatable issues these days, at least mainstream ones. We’ve moved into a polarized kind of post-truth world where the issues of the day don’t share a lot of common ground. Like I feel you sort of need to have the same aims in order to debate which side would better achieve them. If you’re trying to do completely different things that arguing that your side is abstractly better doesn’t work.

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

#8

Post by rimbo789 »

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.

Debates have never been about finding the truth - or at least an objective truth. They have always been about emotions and controlling the audiences reactions. At their best debates help us find some emotional truths but that’s it.

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

#9

Post by constantius »

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.

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 just look at what debate ideas are popular and make them happen, with the promise of a bigger paycheck and a bigger audience.

Can't really find a moat for Logosive here.

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

#10

Post by danudey »

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 shouldn't bother trying to do better.

Likewise with 'vaccines cause autism'. There's no scientific evidence whatsoever to show any link whatsoever, but we need to be balanced so we have to give time to both sides.

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.

They also have "AGI in 5 years?" What's to debate there? Sure, it's possible, who knows? What's the point in debating whether or not something might happen?

If it were 'will AGI be beneficial for humanity?' then okay, that could be a debate, but none of these topics I'm seeing are good fodder for debate; just arguments or baseless assertions.

Post reply on HN