[HN Gopher] Ask HN: Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News ...
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News to debate
politics?
HN is usually not the right place for heated debate. Discussions
end up in flame wars, vitriolic language, and the moderation is
very ad-hoc. But people definitely love to debate. I am envisaging
a platform that allows the community to structure and "type-check"
(loosely) arguments. The key I feel is to allow people to post as
they normally would and then allow annotation tools to structure
arguments. Essentially a super easy UX to carry out [argument
mapping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map). The goal
would be to find as much as possible that people agree on
(definitions, evidence) and then to focus the arguments on the
specific points of contention. I can imagine a template of logical
argument forms such a "X should do Y when Z" which would need to be
filled in for an argument to be valid. Its usually difficult to
come to an objective truth when arguing, so another key point is
tracking consistency of argument. This is a great way to invalidate
an argument. If someone makes a claim like "X should do Y when Z",
if they are caught saying "X should not do Y when something similar
to Z" then its a great way to invalidate an argument and unearth
bias without having to examine the rest of the argument. I want to
bring back the art of debate!
Author : debator
Score : 13 points
Date : 2021-01-20 22:09 UTC (53 minutes ago)
| psyc wrote:
| 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.
| Hnsuz wrote:
| Blah.. HN shadowban you quite fast
| [deleted]
| rvz wrote:
| > 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 the art of debate!
|
| Good. This should be interesting.
|
| [0] https://arguman.org
| emptysongglass wrote:
| 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 was doing.)
|
| I don't know. I really do want to understand the other side's
| ideas but we need a better method than debate because debate is
| fundamentally about winning. Try it with your partner: if either
| side wins everyone loses.
|
| Where my wife and I find the love and communion is when we
| soften. And if we've been quarreling a lot often the thing for us
| is taking a psychedelic together and then crying our eyes out in
| a long embrace. Very healing and the furthest thing I can imagine
| from debate.
|
| I don't know how to love someone who advocates for a country
| doing genocide. Or who says the satellite photos we see are not
| evidence of genocide. And I'm using this most extreme example to
| illustrate that there may not be a point of reconciliation: only
| people feeling good about winning.
| surfer7837 wrote:
| 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
| nodesocket wrote:
| 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 to have thoughtful,
| intelligent political discussions online with both sides. There
| is just to much standing on the pedestal of moral political and
| ethical superiority.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-20 23:02 UTC)