Debubble
IMHO this largely only solves problems caused by Twitter&#x27;s idiosyncratic design, and does little for the deeper problems that cause debates to be toxic.<p>Much more interesting would be a debate format in two phases:<p>Phase 1: just identify what we agree and disagree about. Are there things we actually agree about but are using different words for? Are we using the same words to mean different things? Are there two competing concerns we accuse each other of denying, when we actually both agree on them and are just valuing them differently?<p>The goal would be to create a document that outlines things we agree on and disagree on, and identifies whether the disagreement is factual&#x2F;empirical, values, or logic (hopefully there will be zero of these, but it might be possible). We should be able to fully agree on the contents of this document. If there&#x27;s ever anything you simply <i>can&#x27;t believe</i> the other side disagrees with you about, try to clarify what the deeper disagreement is.<p>Important rule during Phase 1: no persuading. We&#x27;re not allowed say anything to try to persuade the other side, we&#x27;re only allowed to ask clarifying questions about the other side&#x27;s position, and clarify our own positions, because the goal is not to change anyone&#x27;s mind, only to understand, identify, and document what we agree and disagree about.<p>Phase 2: persuade away. It should be much easier to have a civil and respectful discussion if we each understand the other&#x27;s side, their values, and what empirical facts they disagree with the evidence on.<p>(I do really like that Debubble doesn&#x27;t allow bystanders to &quot;cheer for their side&quot;, they can only star the whole debate—I&#x27;m stealing that.)