Debate Policy · Elliot Temple

Elliot Temple Philosopher Home Essays Debate Policy Philosophy Consulting Digital Products Other Websites: Critical Fallibilism Fallible Ideas Curiosity Blog Debate Policy There are three reasons I’ll debate people. I want to. I judge it’s a good idea. It looks valuable to me. (See this explanation of how I allocate my attention .) You request a debate according to my debate policy , below. You use my Paths Forward Policy . Why not just use my judgment and that’s it? That’s what other public intellectuals do. But that allows for bias and other errors . I may judge incorrectly. My debating and paths forward policies are safety mechanisms in case of incorrect judgment. They allow errors to be corrected so that I don’t stay wrong. For more info about the problem of bias, see Using Intellectual Processes to Combat Bias and the articles it links to. If I don’t respond to something, I’m not taking it seriously, I express disinterest, I’m skeptical of the value of the topic, I’m skeptical of the quality of your knowledge, I’m not listening, or I’m otherwise wrong about anything, then you can request a debate according to this policy. The debate policy overrules my initial judgment. Policy Pick a name and stick to it for the whole debate. Have a website under that name with 20+ articles, totaling 20,000+ words. Link it. State that, in your honest and considered opinion, you have skill and knowledge about the topic and something important to say. Give your word of honor that you will continue until we reach an agreement, you state a chain of 5+ impasses , or I state 3+ chained impasses. Debates use asynchronous writing in English. We don’t schedule a time to both show up to debate. It’s not a real-time chat. Instead, we each write independently on our own schedule. Responding to messages within two days is standard but there isn’t a hard rule for timeline. I normally discuss at my Critical Fallibilism Forum . Use it or suggest another forum with feature parity and easy exporting/mirroring. I may decline a debate if I’m not interested in the topic. If I do, I forfeit the right to make claims about that topic contrary to your position that I refused to debate. You may only request one debate at a time. And if a debate ends with chained impasses stated by me, you don’t get another debate unless you address the impasses or I decide to make an optional exception. There is no time limit to solve impasse problems, but don’t expect to ignore those problems with no solution. To understand this policy, you’ll need to read my article explaining debates and impasse chains . Exceptions may be available, especially for other types of content creators who don’t write online articles, but this policy is what I’m guaranteeing I’ll follow even if I have a low opinion of you. Anyone who wants to can meet these requirements. Requiring 20 articles helps filter out unserious people who haven’t finished some intellectual projects. It also lets me review their past work to see what they’re like. And it prevents people from easily switching names and pretending to be a new person. Books, academic papers or other published writing are fine too. Videos or podcasts work for most purposes, but having a written debate with someone who doesn’t write is problematic, so I don’t guarantee to accept those. Articles or other past works must be at least a little bit relevant, e.g. by covering intellectual topics. Post-Mortems and Second Debates Suppose we debate an issue and you concede. Will I have a second debate with you? Yes, but not about any topic. I’ll want to address what went wrong on the first issue. Why did you make that mistake? What are the underlying errors and what further consequences do they have? I think it’s important to post-mortem errors . Errors are usually caused by a systematic problem that affects many things. Low Requirements My debate requirements are designed to be minimal so that anyone with something important to say (in their own opinion) can meet them. That means, if I’m wrong, anyone can correct me. I’m open to debate. The minimal requirements help filter out crap and protect my time, but still allow anything good to get my attention. I’m offering real attention here: meet the requirements, request a debate, and I’m agreeing to spend time and effort on it to reach agreement or else I’ll state a 3+ impasse chain. (I’ll commonly do 5+ impasses but, to protect my time, I’m only guaranteeing 3.) I’m making a promise here, which obligates me to spend time, which is open to the general public. That’s a big deal. The requirements are around the minimum I think can reasonably protect my time from abuse and wastes of time. I’m putting my reputation on the line, and dealing with anyone from the public, because I value discussion and debate, and because I want it to be possible for me to receive external corrections. If I’m biased or making some other mist...