An Audacious proposal
Toward a new Substack service to break the mold
An introduction
I wrote this post a day after I posted Thinking in the mold, which I meant to be an introduction to this proposal.
My idea was to somehow bring it to the attention of the decision makers at Substack because it is bigger than what I can do by myself. I picture this on the level of Notes, a section of Substack standing on its own. I was hoping for a private communication to keep the discussion about the possible rules and setup manageable. I failed to get the attention I was hoping for so here I go, trying to do it publicly.
Read it, consider it and if you can see the potentials, help me to bring the idea to the attention of the people who can make it into a fantastic new addition to Substack!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
To
, ,I wrote thinking in the mold as an introduction to this proposal, to explain my inspiration and the basis of a possible approach to polemics in written debates.
While I am writing this proposal as a post as well, I have no intention to post it before I had a chance to get some feedback on it from people whose support, opinion and possible cooperation I am hoping to secure. If you are reading this, you are one of those people.
The proposal is for an extension to Substack on the level of Notes, a service with its own interface, rules and business model.
The idea
A debate site to revive the spirit of the debates in antiquity, the medieval church, the renaissance and the enlightenment; especially the spirit of the debate societies of the Scottish enlightenment.
While there are a few platforms for debates (IQ2, Munk debates and the Oxford Union come to mind); I am not aware of a platform that would offer a space for structured long form written debates.
The success of Joe Rogan and the long-form interview popularized by him clearly shows that there is a public thirst for serious, engaged thinking and therefore also a potential demand for serious, structured written debates. Long-form interviews existed before, but podcasts and people like Joe Rogan took the genre to a new level. We could do the same with public debates.
I believe that Substack is eminently positioned to succeed with such a service/site and could be a trailblazer in engaging the public in intellectual debates. It can also go to great lengths in democratizing said debates.
The vision
Here is how I envision its functioning:
I go on to debates.substack.com where I can find several sections:
the ongoing debate
proposed debates
debate schedules
archives with debate scorecards
I check out the proposed debates to see if there is any that I would like to see and vote on
I read the latest submissions on the current debate and vote on them
Share the best arguments on Notes
The rules
The following ideas are just suggestions, they should be subjected to some serious brainstorming sessions:
Anybody can propose a debate.
The format of the proposal should be a proposition … let it be resolved that…..
and a max two paragraph description of the proposition.The proponent could tag people they would like to debate with and against
Users can vote up proposals and may suggest other debaters (the mechanics of this should be worked out, especially when inviting someone not on Substack)
Voting on a proposal should be open for a specified amount of time (a week or a month) at which point the most highly voted ones should be scheduled, the rest dropped.
Dropped proposals could be re-suggested at a later time.Users who voted for the selected and scheduled proposal, will be notified with a subscribe button.
The number of debaters should be minimum four, maximum eight, equal in number for the two sides
Each debate should last four weeks. Each debater will be expected to make their case in week one, engage each other’s arguments in weeks two & three and have closing arguments in week four.
The submissions should have a suggested length of 1,000-2,000 words, with external links allowed.
Once the four weeks debate is over, there should be a vote for the overall winner, open for a week for deliberation; after which the results are announced, comments are closed and the debate gets archived.
There are a number of questions open for consideration, such as:
Should there be more than one debate running at the same time or in an overlap? I’d say no, but there could be arguments for it.
Should comments be allowed on each submission, or only on the whole debate? I’d say each submission, but there could be arguments against.
How should ‘winning’ be decided? A simple vote in the end? Minds changed from vote before? In this second case, should the initial vote be yes/no or yes/no/undecided?
I should also suggest that the original proponents should be anonymous, so that the proposal could be voted on its merit, not the name recognition/status of the proponent.
The business model
I see this as a paying service, with a token amount of maybe $2-3 per debate to participate, meaning the right to vote and comment.
(could also be a typical monthly subscription fee)
Current debates should be free for reading, but paid for proposals, voting, commenting, and accessing archivesDebaters should also pay for the right to participate. Again, just a token amount of let’s say $5.-
The person who proposed the debate is automatically in and so is his/her chosen primary opponent. The rest is decided by the voters for the debate.The point of the payment requirements should be to minimize frivolous participation and potential vote padding.
50% of the take should go to Substack, the other 50% divided between the debaters of the winning side
The greatest potential benefit of a debate site would be the attracting of new users to Substack.
I would definitely want to invite (challenge) outsiders to debate. Al Gore on environmental policy, Peter Hotez on Covid, Lindsey Graham on Ukraine and Klaus Schwab or Yuval Noah Harari on the WEF. (Of course I’m kidding, but I’m sure you get the jest of it)
 I would love to invite debating on my side Jordan Peterson on a number of subjects. I would want to debate feminism with Naomi Wolf on my side. High enough number of up-votes asking for their participation may entice some public figures to make their case in the debate, hopefully bringing many new users to the platform.
Debate proposals
I just want to give here a short sample of the kinds of debates I may want to propose. (with a little more extended descriptions, of course)
Mistakes were not made
While incompetence can explain a lot, most of the COVID policies were designed to do harm, not to mitigate it.The war in Ukraine is the exposure of the corruption in US foreign policy.
The USA needs to radically change its foreign policy if it wants to stay relevant.Artificial intelligence is not an existential threat to humanity.
Only the attempts to control it are.There is no climate crisis
The environment is a complex system and we should check our arrogance assuming that we can control it.The denial of reality cannot be the foundation of a good society
We have to find a way to agree on what is real and why reality actually mattersSocial justice is no justice at all
The two interpretations of justice (equal treatment vs equal outcome) are mutually exclusive. We have to be sure to properly understand which one we want to choose.America does not have a moral leg to stand on when preaching about democracy and the rules based international order
The USA has to face the fact that its global domination is over and has to learn to live in the new, multipolar world order.Life is not a safe place
We are doing a disservice to younger generations by shielding them from the harshness of reality and do not teach them how to handle hardship.The problem is NOT education but the monopoly power of the state over it.
It does not matter what any school teaches, as long as there is a free market competition amongst them.The World Economic Forum is none of its name.
It is not Global; it is not about the economy and it is not an open forum.Feminism did more harm than good to women
Each new wave of feminism makes women less happy and fulfilled. We need a correction.Pride is a sin, not a victory
We should find a proper place for lifestyle alternativesIf we cannot use our mouth to speak, we’ll be left with only the fist.
The freedom of speech is not a fetish, but the foundation of civilized existence. Without it, violence is the only way to sort out our differences.The Open Society Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are forces for good
… as they are representing the most important values of humanity: democracy, equality, inclusion and humanitarian help.
The above examples are obviously leaning in one direction as they are clear reflections of my libertarian conservative world view. (Except the last one, which I would argue against vehemently)
Your bias and ambition (meaning that of Substack) is also very clear from the way you are promoting the platform. You want to take it mainstream. Â You want to support free speech, but you do not want to turn it into a battlefield. You want to make it respectable; you want to keep it civilized.
What I want you to consider is that the format alone can do that. There is no room for hysterics in the long form interview, that is the domain of short form polemics. Having said that, I should also say that controversy gets attention. Most of the examples above are taboo subjects, but in a format that can make them discussable. I would above all trust the community, its choices, its judgement and above all – its writers.
If I can get you as excited about this as I am, all I am hoping for is a seat at the table when working out the details. If it is done right, this can be big. I just want to be part of it. Beyond the personal satisfaction of helping the debates, my ‘reward’ will be increased exposure, just like it will be for everybody else..Â
With all this said, the only question is: can we start debating the debates?
I would very much like to see the thoughts of the people I am already following, and many of whom I would like to debate with as well as some I would like to see on the other side:
If you like the idea, please help me make it happen. If you don’t, let me know why.
I did not include a subscribe button in this post because this is not about me, but about the idea. help me spreading it. Cross-post, restack and share! When you do, tag the founders……
, can we talk about it?
Hello Zork, when you first shared this post with me I was enthusiastic. I thought Zork wants to discuss things. Discuss means take a deep look at the content and say what seems to be missing, or how the assumptions are not general enough, or that at least my assumptions are a bit different. Then transmit that as a feed back, and see if there is any acknowledgement, or if even I have overlooked things.
That's what I want to do. So let's go.
But then I looked more at the formality that you propose. There will be 12 "debates" a year each with 8 important people. Then by a payment some people can vote and there will be winners and losers declared. Because there is no room for hysterics in the long form interview, we will be able to treat taboo subjects. (My ‘reward’ will be my increased exposure.) Will you be one of those 8 important people? (96 people altogether in the full series.)
So I wrote a post on Why Not Think to explain these differences. I don't see you come on my site, so here's the link:
https://whynotthink.substack.com/p/10-wnt-revisiting-the-stated-purpose
Basically I said that dialog can have rules (or understandings), but it takes off by itself, if two people committed to talking come together. There could be 3 - 4 or more people, (a tie breaker), but then you can't comment very well, because there are too many points. Not too many points to digest, but why write a book just to make a comment. Which indicates that you can keep this dialog confined to a few important arguments. Then expand on the next one, a series of sorts.
_________________
There is another post where we experimented with a "debate format" all in one post. I am not sure how to define debate, if it has to be for and against? It wasn't that. It was more an examination of what would be the differences in an oral society, (pre-printing, manuscripts are OK), and a visual society programmed by the phonetic alphabet. The point is uncovering our built-in biases, just because we are in an English western society.
https://whynotthink.substack.com/p/1-dbt-ancient-mankind-lived-only
If you want to talk, about anything, I am ready. If you want to talk with Jordan Peterson Just propose one of his articles, (if he has any less than an hour), and defend or critique it. I'll do the same. We'll be each talking with Jordan Peterson, but without his propensity to look-good to his followers.
WHAT DO YOU SAY?
.
Think it is a great idea -