zlacker

>>hn_thr+(OP)
Sounds like you basically want political debate, but only among smart and/or well educated people?

It's an interesting idea for sure, but I'm not sure how or if such a thing can exist. Moderation becomes a headache, and well, a lot of truly brilliant people I've met in life have zero interest in debating it. How do you keep out the YT commenters, Fox News or r/politics commenters, etc?

It would be interesting if HN had some bucket like /offtopic, for things that are flamebaity and removed from the main view, but I fear it would attract the aforementioned people who only ever troll there, and dang probably having zero interest in mod'ing it.

>>silisi+F4
> Sounds like you basically want political debate, but only among smart and/or well educated people?

formalized highschool and college debate is pretty much this

>>whimsi+y7
That is sort of the opposite of what I've been told about high school and college formal debate, from people here who did it --- i.e., that there's little actual discussion involved. I'm trying to track down something Patrick McKenzie wrote about it; it made me stop regretting missing out on debate (one of only a few aspects of school I used to think I would have enjoyed).

>>tptace+lR
I did one year of high school debate and this is accurate. There is no real discussion at all, strictly statements supported by facts.

It was really boring for me, and at times a lot of work. However, one thing I appreciated about it is that at times you'd obviously be arguing a side you don't necessarily agree with, and learn a ton in the process. Also surprise yourself a bit in how convincing you can be. In a way, I wish everyone had the time and effort to research a POV they don't agree with, but as if they did.

Probably great training for a lawyer or paralegal, perhaps even public speaker, but I personally didn't find a lot of joy in it.

>>silisi+FV
> There is no real discussion at all, strictly statements supported by facts.

What do you mean by this? I did a few different forms of debate in highschool and this seems like a really surface level characterization of just a few of these sub-types.

>>whimsi+TW
Mine only had one, but it's been 20 years so some details elude me. I remember we used to have LD and policy, but there wasn't enough interest to maintain two anymore.

So in ours, it was a 1v1 and basically you just spoke for 2 or 3 minutes to a judge, wrote down notes from the other speaker to make rebuttals, then it was over.

What I meant is it very much isn't a back and forth discussion of any sort. In fact, you were never really speaking to each other at all, just to the judge or moderator. Speak for a couple minutes spewing facts and references, listen, do it again, etc.

Apologies if I overgeneralized all debate based only on my experience.