This is true for many modern-style debates on podcasts on television, but my goal is for Logosive to elevate debate to truth-seeking again.

One debate format I'd like to see on Logosive is asynchronous debate, similar to the Federalist Papers, where the debaters submit their positions and rebuttals to each other as written statements, over the course of weeks. I think this format could align with more of a truth-seeking type of debate, and Logosive can already support this format.

Most public debates aren't a matter of truth seeking, and haven't been for a long time (two examples below). Rather, it's a platform for people to make their case to the audience.

That said, the level of respect and orderliness of the debates below is something I'd like to see more of.

* Russell v. Copleston on God https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMsbD1L5IlQ

* Buckley v. Baldwin on if the american dream is at the expense of the american negro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin%E2%80%93Buckley_debate

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.

>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.

The last debate that changed my mind on anything was about 20 years ago. It was a structured debate regarding marriage equality. The negative team, included a wildcard, a poly bisexual woman, whose relationship would still be ignored by the government after the change. She argued, very successfully in my opinion, that moving the bar one step made no sense, and the government simply shouldnt have a favoured relationship status at all.

Since then I cant think of any. However, I also cant think of another proper structured debate I have seen.

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.

>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.

That’s true, but I think even in those cases, debate unveils important questions that can help arrive at more definitive answers as future data comes in.

I understand that's the goal, but the end result is that a charismatic debater that engages in emotional rhetoric that can appeal to the audience will "win" over a well-researched academic more often than not.

The outcome is often... less than desirable.

Perhaps asynchronous debate through written word exchanges undertaken over weeks, in the spirit of the Federalist Papers, could help mollify this risk. Logosive supports this format.

I’ve also enjoyed the debate about debate that this discussion has generated, so thank you for that.

Searches for truth are left to academic papers.

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

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.