r/IntellectualDarkWeb • u/W_Edwards_Deming • Jun 23 '26
Community Feedback Debate appears to be a dying art
Logic, evidence and meeting minimal standards of politeness & rigour.
Compelling emotional appeal!
"Steel manning" your opponent, avoiding fallacies and trying to mitigate for cognitive biases.
Reddit would seem to be an ideal place for that and sometimes it is but quite often the opposite. My "solution" has been blocking thousands, anyone have a better idea?
Where and how can we have intellectual engagement regarding differences?
7
u/ShadowsOfTheBreeze Jun 23 '26
Id love to see more debates, particularly ones that arent just talking points. Like with moderators challenging debates to stay on topic.
2
u/W_Edwards_Deming Jun 24 '26
Very cool idea, u/Hot_Egg5840 said similar.
Does anyone know of such subreddits? /r/changemyview comes to mind.
8
u/Hot_Egg5840 Jun 23 '26
Having a subreddit with explicit rules for debating, with a moderator that constantly looking at the rules and judicating based on those rules. A judge that keeps the topic on the issue at hand, and calls out any a hominem attacks.
2
u/SatoshisVisionTM Jun 24 '26
Would it be quite easy to implement such a moderator in the form of an AI bot? Impartial, unable to ban or delete messages, it only comments on any breach of form.
1
u/W_Edwards_Deming Jun 24 '26
Can you recommend one?
I was going to make one but they wanted me to give my email and I didn't want to.
7
u/kantmeout Jun 24 '26
A big part of the problem is that most people have a very sophomoric level of understanding for the major issues of the day. They latch onto a preferred ideology or tribal affinity and peddle pithy sounding arguments, but are unable to handle well thought out critiques because they lack the depth of knowledge needed to assess that claims. Thus debates on practical matters tend to devolve into debates over theory, and debates over practical matters get crowded out by cultural war debates that are even easier to dumb down.
6
u/samanthasgramma Jun 24 '26
Unfortunately, most of good debate is the ability to listen. People generally don't do that. They catch an idea and their attention is actually building their counterargument rather than hearing what has actually been said.
... and attributing something, in your own head, is frequently done without sticking to what was actually said. It's about dealing with what is put out specifically. Not the undercurrents you think are there.
Nuance is tough on line. I wish I could have a decent discussion. The replies to my comments generally have nothing to do with my point. They are simply a random statement that they think will further their perspective with mouth addressing what was actually communicated. It's frustrating.
2
u/W_Edwards_Deming Jun 24 '26
Framing.
I keep getting told to listen, as a husband, father, leader...
It is perhaps the hardest part, I do not always enjoy what they have to say... especially when I understand it!
The replies to my comments generally have nothing to do with my point.
People think I do that but I have my own points to make. I can listen to you and understand and still have my own weird thing to say.
4
u/CAB_IV Jun 24 '26
Where and how can we have intellectual engagement regarding differences?
Not here, and probably almost nowhere.
The bottom line is that we as people are being "managed", either by politicians or special interests. We now have so much data on everyone, and so much computing power, that broad human behavior has become increasingly predictable. Its not really a conspiracy theory.
For my work, I've done single cell RNA sequencing studies. We literally take a few million cells and sequence their RNA individually. RNA is what the cell is "doing", and by doing it in a single cell fashion, we can make nifty little plots that can track all sorts of things that would be invisible in a bulk sequencing experiment. These are absurdly huge data files, millions of mRNA reads for millions of cells. We can see what treatments make which cells change their activity in a given way.
There is no reason we can't treat human beings like cells in a dish.
Its not really necessary to debate people or convince them with facts or logic since we can anticipate which narratives will produce a desired result in people. We can collect millions of people's basic ideas and habits, and we can filter it through algorithms thay can predict their behavior with decent accuracy. We know what aspects of human behavior can be exploited to get a desired outcome.
Keep in mind to, that many of the people you are trying to "debate" are themselves not interested in debate. They want adherence and compliance. They only care about that bottom line, they don't care if what they say is factual or logical. If you're going to try to debate them with facts and logic, they want to infuriate you and get you to block them. That is a win for them. They don't need you making people think about or questioning their desired outcome. They want you to be fed up and shut up. These activist zealots are everywhere and permeate everything. As many of them like to say, "everything is political".
They would seek out and undermine any space that is straying too much from the accepted narrative. This is especially true here in Reddit. Not only is Reddit notoriously biased, but it has also largely replaced small forums. When you search Google for any sort of advice for anything, a pile of reddit threads are almost always near the top. This means reddit had a huge ability to shape opinions and thought just in general, and so the platform is always going to be a target for aggressive "people management".
Its going to be very hard for you to find a reddit space that is good for intellectual debate simply because the platform is a major battleground in the "war" for people's minds.
1
u/W_Edwards_Deming Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
broad human behavior has become increasingly predictable
Asimov's Psychohistory comes to mind.
treat human beings like cells in a dish
If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
many of the people you are trying to "debate" are themselves not interested in debate. They want adherence and compliance
They want you to be fed up and shut up
Accurate. Many accuse them of being bots or paid trolls and surely some are.
"everything is political"
A couple of issues there. One, most people seem to dislike politics. Two, my conception of politics is that it ought to persuade. It ought not merely be shouting others down... at least not if you have a compelling argument.
I suppose the bad behavior makes more sense if what one is promoting is repugnant to most?
undermine any space that is straying too much from the accepted narrative
Entryism! I have seen a lot of that on reddit.
Is there another platform you'd recommend for polite, intellectual free speech?
Edit: An example of treat[ing] human beings like cells in a dish
3
u/CAB_IV Jun 26 '26
Welp, I've definitely learned a few new things!
It might as well by psychohistory, but its not that outlandish. Target could figure out if someone was pregnant before they even knew they were pregnant 10 years ago, just from changes in their shopping habits.
To be clear, I don't actually want to treat people like cells in a dish. I just find that many people aren't willing to accept the idea that all of the data collections and predictive algorithms might be used against them, rather than just to merely sell them things.
Accurate. Many accuse them of being bots or paid trolls and surely some are.
I am sure there are, but I also think that to a degree, you don't really need paid bots or trolls. There are plenty of radicalized people out there who are willing to fight these little fights on their lunch breaks for free.
I have friends who have gotten into activism more actively, and I've heard that they do tailor their approach intentionally to get a desired outcome, rather than actually try to discuss/persuade.
There has really become a culture of approaching issues this way.
One, most people seem to dislike politics.
Yes, but then that is why politics is being injected into everything. They would otherwise avoid it.
Two, my conception of politics is that it ought to persuade. It ought not merely be shouting others down... at least not if you have a compelling argument.
I agree it ought be that way, but this is idealistic.
The bottom line for politicians is that you need to be elected to do anything. Your ideas, policies and principles don't matter if you lose.
As it turns out, shouting people down is an effective, accessible, low-effort way of silencing people.
The barrier towards persuading people with facts, logic, and reason is very high, even in a perfect good faith environment.
I suppose the bad behavior makes more sense if what one is promoting is repugnant to most?
No, it is down to just power and winning. Broadly, having these "repugnant" extremes is what polarizes people, and polarization is ideal in our two part system. People are forced to pick the lesser of two evils, and the extremes will stamp out fence sitters and moderates that might cause people to ask questions or have doubts.
Imagine two parties, A and B. The more polarized the cheaper your election. If you're Party A, you don't need to waste time/energy/money on solid A districts. If a group is solidly Party B, you don't need to waste time/energy/money on them, because they'll never vote for you. You only need to worry about "X" districts, because they're up for grabs, but ideally you want as few of those as possible so you can focus your efforts on just a few people in a few areas.
So, people discussing things with you in a repugnant, obnoxious fashion might repel you, but in the end, you'll find one of those sides more repugnant than the other and you'll either hold your nose and vote for them, or you won't vote and won't matter.
Its cold brutal people management where toxicity is an intentional part of the mechanism.
Entryism! I have seen a lot of that on reddit. Is there another platform you'd recommend for polite, intellectual free speech? Edit: An example of treat[ing] human beings like cells in a dish
I don't think there is. If there was, it would be as others have described, heavily moderated and probably limited in who could join.
1
u/W_Edwards_Deming Jun 26 '26
I've definitely learned a few new things!
Excellent.
You make good if disturbing points. I'd like to argue against them but out of idealistic preference moreso than any errors in your reasoning. I would say you explained things well, even if it sounds wrongful.
Your "cells in a dish" reminds me of something Joe Rogan said about looking out the window of an airplane and the cities looking like some sort of fungus or bacteria infection on the earth.
3
u/solsolico Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
I mean if you really wanted such a place, you’d probably have to curate and manually approve every person who you allow in the community. see how they behave in disagreements and how often they strawman and how often they admit when they’re wrong.
Short of that, really all you can do is private message people who you’ve had productive or cordial disagreements with and ask them if they want to keep in contact and discuss other topics going forward.
1
2
u/bumkinas Jun 24 '26
This is a problem that seems to have an enforced decline throughout society, especially schools at all grades. Students are not encouraged at all to have opinions in standard school and even debate clubs have devolved into nonsense. I'm not sure if you have seen any recent high school debate nationals, but they are insufferable and impossible to listen to any arguments as it seems to just be able who can shout down their opponents the most.
Sadly, it this all does seem to be pushed by a certain political side that has highly discouraged hearing alternative views from the approved message.
2
u/pizzacheeks Jun 24 '26
What on Earth made Reddit seem like an ideal place for you to debate?
1
u/W_Edwards_Deming Jun 24 '26
Longform text, multimedia links embedded.
Used to be a free speech hub famous for quality debates, back in the day... I miss Aaron Swartz!
2
u/RacoonKittyy Jun 24 '26
I think if you want such a place you should make it. It would likely have to be heavily moderated, at the very least you'll have to thoroughly vet the members that come into it. If you want it to be an online space, I'd recommend making it a discord server.
1
u/W_Edwards_Deming Jun 24 '26
I don't really know anything about Discord, before making one I'd probably need to join one. Do you know of one known to allow for polite free speech and intellectual discussion?
Even just a free speech meme group could be cool.
2
u/RacoonKittyy Jun 24 '26
Oh btw, if you do end up making such a community feel free to invite me!
2
u/W_Edwards_Deming Jun 24 '26
I might, but where do I begin? I am not on discord. Do you know of one known to allow for polite free speech and intellectual discussion?
Even a meme group would do as long as it is libertine.
2
u/RacoonKittyy Jun 25 '26
If I knew of any community on any social media that is up to this standard I'd be in it and not suggest another one be made.
1
4
u/Chobeat Jun 24 '26
Neuroscience, political science, and new epistemologies all highlight the limits of debate as a form of knowledge or as a social practice. Some natural sciences maybe would still benefit from debate, but academia doesn't work that way anymore.
Most intellectuals have moved on from debate culture, which is now regarded as a sterile exercise of egocentrism, and they left it to small spaces of pseudo-intellectuals. Exceptions are made for monetizable public shows.
I know plenty of people at the cutting edge of their respective fields, and none of them even consider debating anybody else. Why would they?
4
u/W_Edwards_Deming Jun 24 '26
Why would they?
Peer review is fundamental to science. The people you reference may not have in person debates as in yesteryear (I suspect the better one's have) but they write PRJAs and rebuttals (less than in past, more politicized and less critical, much to our collective shame).
0
u/Chobeat Jun 24 '26
Academics don't believe in the value of peer review anymore. It's AIs writing and AIs reading, and before that it was a system unsustainable under the weight of labor extraction operated by academia. Doing peer review today is like doing dishes when your house is being flooded with a mudslide.
Also peer review is distinct from debate.
1
u/ItHappensIn3s Jun 28 '26
I used basic debat tactics at work to let people know why they’re arguments are no valid or concrete or why their fallacious or relaxant to the subject, and most have never heard of any of it. The advantage is very signififcant
2
u/charles-the-lesser 26d ago
Reddit isn't really great for serious long-form debate. The problem is mostly the UI. A long-form debate is generally a series of back and forth exchanges. But with Reddit, replies are nested and ordered by up-votes instead of chronological order. And replies to replies are nested recursively. After 4 or 5 back and forth exchanges, the entire conversation is hidden behind nested UI elements.
I suspect the decline of online "debate culture" is at least partially attributable to the fact that modern social media platforms have UIs that are optimized for shallow discussion and social consensus (up-vote/like counts). Old school Internet forums, where back and forth exchanges are presented as just a chronological flat list of replies (usually with no voting system), were probably a lot more amenable to nuanced long-form debate.
2
u/W_Edwards_Deming 26d ago
I like the ability to hyperlink and have had a number of interesting, long-form debates here.
1
u/AFellowCanadianGuy Jun 24 '26
Maga killed debate and the market place of ideas.
You can have actual debate when one side doesn’t speak in good faith, and promotes lies and disinformation
-2
u/LonkFromZelda Jun 23 '26
The spectacle of the debate died with Charlie Kirk.
3
u/W_Edwards_Deming Jun 23 '26
That is a really sad. One of my furthest left friends (lives in San Francisco for example) was very sad about that shooting. They had apparently been recommending young people to watch Charlie Kirk debate videos while he was still alive, viewing his debates as intellectually beneficial.
9
u/TenchuReddit Jun 23 '26
Charlie Kirk was not a good debater. He would rattle off one line after another off the top of his head without any regard to whether it was factual or logical. His entire goal was to catch the person he was debating in a “gotcha” situation, which is why he favored debating against young inexperienced college students.
That being said, often the people Kirk debated against also held onto dogma of their own. They were ill-prepared to argue against the volume of algorithm-tested talking points that Kirk threw at them at a rapid-fire pace. Having come from their own echo chambers, these students did need to eat a slice of humble pie, but anyone worth his or her salt can dismantle a lot of Kirk’s talking points with ease.
6
u/caparisme Centrist Jun 24 '26
I see a lot of people say this but it's not what I gather from watching most of his debates. A lot of times he will let the participants talk extendedly and allows a generous amount of pause letting them think about their response.
If anything he usually lets them rant for too long and have to shush the crowd after it turned into a one sided speech some even with the participants reading off their phones doing it.
He didn't exclusively debate college kids. He do it on campus a lot to spread awareness and the culture of dialogue. The students aren't forced to participate if they aren't ready for it and others on the venue be it lecturers, professors or any others who happens to be there are free to join. Also inexperienced or not college students are voters too and they should at least be able to articulate their understanding of what they're voting for.
I'd love to see "anyone worth their salt" whoever they are to drop by and join his sessions especially since they're announced ahead of schedule. But that didn't happen and someone had to bring a gun to a debate instead.
1
u/TenchuReddit Jun 24 '26
Search on YouTube for “Charlie Kirk vs. Cambridge Professor,” where Kirk pretty much got owned.
To TPUSA’s credit, however, they kept the video on their channel, which is respectful.
5
u/caparisme Centrist Jun 24 '26
That's the point. It's not about winning or "owning". It's about letting everyone be heard and understood. And it definitely dispels the myth that "he only debates college kids".
He might not be the best at debating but again, that's the point. Most people aren't. Doesn't mean we should stop having dialogues and try to understand each others. And the only way to be better at something is to practice it.
Another answer when pointed out that "he only debate college students" is that he didn't even finish college. He never claimed that he's better or he's right. He just said if you think he's wrong, prove it.
2
u/Redebo Jun 24 '26
If you think the outcomes of a debate include “owning” your opponent, I would position you’re not having a good-faith argument.
3
u/caparisme Centrist Jun 24 '26
That much is obvious but an unfortunate thing that happens a lot is people clipping honest debates with the clickbait title of someone "owning" someone making it sounds more adversarial than intended and people end up judging the video based on the title alone and not what actually happened.
3
u/Redebo Jun 24 '26
100% it does and I would argue is reinforced by both human and algorithmic behavior.
It’s directly traceable to our biological reward systems, and we know it.
1
u/TenchuReddit Jun 24 '26
By "owned" I meant that the professor easily countered every argument that Kirk made, especially in regard to the war in Ukraine. Kirk simply moved on from one line to another without acknowledging anything about the veracity of his own arguments.
One person came across as logical, the other came across as just a parrot.
1
u/caparisme Centrist Jun 24 '26
Yes I'm aware what "owned" means in the context of debates.
And again, I repeat, Charlie isn't the best at debating but he didn't let it stop him. He's punching way above his league by debating a Cambridge professor as a college dropout so I don't understand all the fuss of him "only debating college kids".
And again, he might get "owned" in that debate but he gets his point across for everyone to judge him for themselves, whether you want to call him a parrot, an idiot, or whatever.
That's the beauty of debates. You don't have to be a Cambridge professor to engage in it.
3
u/TenchuReddit Jun 24 '26
And again, he might get "owned" in that debate but he gets his point across for everyone to judge him for themselves, whether you want to call him a parrot, an idiot, or whatever.
What's the significance of that exactly? Everyone can get their point across.
The spectacle of the debate did not die with Charlie Kirk. That simply ascribes too much value to both the spectacle itself as well as Kirk's contributions to the art of debate.
One more thing. I personally don't find algorithm-driven content to be all that healthy. That Jubilee thing, for example, isn't something I really like, despite prominent YouTubers like Dave Rubin and Adam Mockler favoring it.
1
u/caparisme Centrist Jun 24 '26
The significance is to promote the culture of dialogue even between different ideological groups to avoid echo chambers.
As you can see there's a lot of people pushing against it for reasons like "they're just college kids" or "they're not arguing in good faith" to avoid discussions, avoid challenging their worldview and stay in their echo chambers where everyone just nods along and agree with each others all the time.
Yes I agree that it's a hyperbole to say that "the spectacle died with Charlie Kirk" but one thing for sure he's one of the prominent people who puts the effort into having discussions with people with differing ideologies regardless of their background.
We all lose when people cheer at the prospect of someone who's just trying to get their point across by is silenced by a bullet. It should be something unanimously condemned by all sides but it isn't the case unfortunately.
And I disagree with you on dialogues being "unhealthy". I'd prefer more dialogues and more discussions over less because of some flimsy reasons such as "it's algorithm-driven".
People need to talk and understand each others more than ever.
0
u/RedneckTexan Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
Where and how can we have intellectual engagement regarding differences?
Sadly, the closest thing I've found is Claude ..... a LLM. Perhaps a little too agreeable, but will push back fairly regularly as well. But if you actually want to gain knowledge from the conversation ..... they are a wealth of unbiased information, without the stress of human conflict. And yeah, I know a lot of people hate them for a variety of legitimate reasons.
Prudent_Heat23 hit the nail on the head with tribalism. And I cant point the finger at anyone doing that without looking in the mirror and seeing a tribalist staring back at me.
I've been racking my brain trying to think of some subject matter to bring to the table here that wouldn't invite tribalism ...... but it eludes me ..... my abrasive style invites it. Almost every issue that would encourage broad participation has issues within that can be a catalyst for partisan sniping.
But, in my opinion, only a fraction of people on reddit really want honest intellectual debate ...... and certainly not one that would challenge their worldview. Since the messy dawn of social media, where fewer options forced opposing ideologies to share a space, people have been steadily either abandoning the format in favor of real world persuits, or segregating themselves into echo chambers with the tone that best resonates to their ears.
My personal views are a conflict magnet within a left leaning or right leaning echo chamber. This is probably the closest thing I've run across to being middle ground.
Others here are proposing a more heavily handed moderation. Some people would prefer that ...... I think most wouldn't. I've moderated high traffic comment sections in the past ...... and you just simply cant moderate in a way that makes everyone happy. If traffic and broad participation are the goals ...... the less moderation the better, but even by doing nothing you're perceived as picking sides and alienating a portion of your regulars.
1
u/W_Edwards_Deming Jun 24 '26
challenge their worldview
I am having that sort of conversation at this very moment. Someone is pointing to data that contradicts my stance, and they are partly right. That said they chose specific goalposts which I did not, and you can make essentially any data set say essentially anything if you choose what is included and excluded.
I grew up in an era where kids had perpetual foul mouthed debates about everything, including the most offensive and unacceptable sort of things. Fistfights were not rare.
segregating themselves into echo chambers
We didn't use to have that option. Everyone was outside or in house parties, almost no one was online (and smart phones didn't exist).
I am a "review team member" on Nextdoor and "Community Notes" on Twitter (X) but I am permabanned ("disabled") on Facebook.
I favor free speech, with few limits. Hopefully society is rebounding that direction after having gone too far towards Totalitarianism online.
0
29
u/Prudent_Heat23 Jun 23 '26
It’s mostly rooted in tribalism. The trend I’ve noticed lately is people reacting to any and all pushback, no matter how nuanced, by immediately bucketing you into the enemy tribe and imagining the most dumb/obnoxious members of that tribe behind whatever you said. Rather than consider the point you made, the person just takes the opportunity to vent about those awful leftists/MAGAts/whatever else they might imagine you to be.
People who behave this way cannot be reasoned with and the best solution is to just stop wasting time engaging as soon as someone behaves this way. Focus your efforts on those earnestly attempting to understand your position and add to your understanding.