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.
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 think much of the value is the funding infrastructure and also the debate creation and discoverability, similar in some ways to the role eventbrite serves for events.
Thanks for catching the copy and messaging edits. The homepage debate is a sample debate that directs to the list of proposed debates. I’ll change that sample debate so it’s less confusing.
Thanks for sharing those other platforms. I think what differentiates Logosive is the funding mechanism, which could allow debaters, organizers, and promoters to earn substantial revenue from their debates. This also provides more of a market mechanism to reveal which topics are most in demand for debate.
Thanks so much for your support and perspective. I’ve seen some debates where one debater dominates, but so far it hasn’t ended discussion of the given topic but has rather led to more questions raised for discussion in future debates. But I could see an outcome where it does end the discussion for some amount of time.
I’ve also seen a surge of interest in debate outside just political debate, especially on platforms like Jubilee, podcasts, and X spaces.
Thanks for these considerations. I think even if a debate doesn’t help arrive at an ultimate truth, it can still be beneficial as a substrate for revealing important questions that can then provide a deeper or more nuanced understanding of a given topic.
AI is used on the debate creation form on the homepage to generate the debate description and to suggest debaters or topics based on debaters. Alternatively, there’s a manual debate creation flow, but most users start with the AI prompt then edit the output of the AI-generated debate details.
First, thank you for the confidence about Logosive taking off.
You describe an interesting problem with the moat. I'm hoping we can be the choice venue for debates by providing the best debate creation and discovery experience and by also providing larger paychecks to debaters than news channels and podcasts could ever hope to provide to debaters, hosts, and debate promoters, through Logosive's funding mechanism and a large revenue share for all parties involved in the debate.
Thanks for the feedback. One mechanism we can use to address this is to update the debate descriptions if the debaters have suggestions about how they'd like their positions described. Open to other ideas for this too, and I think we will figure out better approaches as we launch our first debates.
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.
That's a good point. Before a debater agrees to the debate, the debater is marked as "pending" on the debate page, but that could be made more clear on some other parts of the platform.
Thanks for the feedback on what could be confusing messaging. The debates happen between real people. The AI is used to create the debate launch page based on the debate organizer's prompt.