←back to thread

1401 points alankay | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source

This request originated via recent discussions on HN, and the forming of HARC! at YC Research. I'll be around for most of the day today (though the early evening).
Show context
username3 ◴[] No.11941417[source]
Is there any site that lists all arguments from all sides and reach a conclusion? If they don't reach a conclusion, do they have an issue tracking system and leave the issue open for anyone to find easily and respond?

Debates should have a programming language, have CI for new arguments, have unit tests to check logic, have issues tracked and collaborated on GitHub.

replies(1): >>11945803 #
alankay1 ◴[] No.11945803[source]
The problems with most arguments is that they arguers assume they are in a valid context (this is usually not the case, and this is the central problem of "being rational"). Another way to look at it is "Forget about trying to win an argument -- use argumentation to try to understand the issues better and from more perspectives ..."
replies(1): >>11951067 #
mmiller ◴[] No.11951067[source]
I think another way of looking at what you said is people can feel threatened or diminished by certain arguments, even if they're not directed at them, when certain cherished premises are challenged, and part of learning to argue well is to learn to take those feelings as signals that the argument needs to be looked at closely and seriously, but not as truth. It's not the final word, but more checking needs to be done to see if one's own premises are close to reality or not. Of course, that always needs to be done, but from what I see, many people are not equipped to deal with an argument that hits a nerve, much less to listen to ideas that don't agree with each other, and consider the argument based on its content, not on attitudes ("What it sounds like or feels like").

Since "fast and slow" have been a part of the discussion here, perhaps what I'm describing has to do with the relationship between "System 1" and System 2?

replies(1): >>11953772 #
alankay1 ◴[] No.11953772[source]
Most people confuse "arguing" with "debating".
replies(1): >>11964839 #
1. mmiller ◴[] No.11964839[source]
I agree. I hate to be a downer about this, but these days I'm glad to find someone who knows how to debate well, much less argue well.