2019 Adversarial Collaboration Entries
Scott Alexander presents the eight entries for the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest, explaining the concept and announcing a future reader vote.
A thread through the archive
Essays tagged “debate”. Follow an idea across the archive.
Scott Alexander presents the eight entries for the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest, explaining the concept and announcing a future reader vote.
Scott Alexander announces that the adversarial collaboration contest will proceed, lists the registered teams, and introduces a new rule for proposing topics.
Scott Alexander announces the second Adversarial Collaboration Contest, where people with opposing views collaborate on essays about controversial topics for prizes.
Scott Alexander critiques the use of bias arguments in debates, explaining why they're often counterproductive and suggesting more constructive ways to address bias.
Scott Alexander examines how increased rational debate doesn't always lead to truth, using personal and societal examples, and suggests ways to carefully approach traditions and changes.
Scott Alexander explains why the controversial Culture War thread was removed from r/slatestarcodex due to harassment, and discusses the challenges of hosting spaces for difficult conversations online.
Scott Alexander announces winners of the adversarial collaboration contest and shares participant feedback, while reflecting on potential issues with the format.
Scott Alexander argues that fundamental value differences are less common and less aligned with political tribes than often assumed, emphasizing the need for coexistence despite varying values.
Scott Alexander explores why US suicide rates aren't higher despite high gun ownership, concluding that the US likely has a low base rate elevated by gun availability.
Scott Alexander argues that the Intellectual Dark Web can be both popular and silenced, explaining various mechanisms of social censorship and how they apply to controversial thinkers.
Scott Alexander proposes a hierarchy of types of disagreements, from low-level meta-debate to high-level philosophical differences, and discusses how to engage in more productive arguments.
Scott Alexander announces a contest for adversarial collaborations, offering prizes for teams who write balanced summaries on controversial topics they disagree about.
Scott Alexander defends his 'Against Murderism' post against Nathan Robinson's criticism, arguing that Robinson misrepresented his arguments and ignored key parts of the original post.
Scott Alexander uses satirical short stories to critique and deconstruct thought experiments challenging libertarian principles, highlighting their flaws and misrepresentations.
Scott Alexander examines self-serving bias and status quo defense using Oregon's gas station law change, arguing for better rational debate skills to navigate societal changes.
Scott Alexander critiques Adam Grant's article on gender differences in tech, arguing Grant misrepresents evidence and ignores key factors like innate interest differences between men and women.
Scott Alexander argues that true logical debate, rarely attempted, could be more effective in changing minds than commonly believed, and is necessary for long-term progress in distinguishing truth from falsehood.
The post presents challenging hypothetical debate questions for presidential candidates, addressing controversial aspects of their platforms or backgrounds.
Scott Alexander examines the problem of endless, unproductive arguments in online communities and proposes ways to mitigate them while maintaining healthy discourse.
Scott Alexander dissects and criticizes Breitbart's misleading use of statistics about illegal immigrant crime, emphasizing the need for better understanding and interpretation of data in political debates.
Scott Alexander presents satirical, absurdist 'hardball' questions for presidential candidates, blending their backgrounds with outlandish scenarios and philosophical puzzles.
Scott Alexander explains his defensiveness as a response to unfair critiques that risk pushing groups into irredeemable disrepute, and grapples with how to address this issue.
Scott Alexander presents a new list of internet annoyances for 2015, ranging from argumentative tactics to web design issues.
Scott Alexander examines how debates often revolve around vague concepts with positive or negative associations rather than specific claims, leading to logical fallacies and tribal thinking.
Scott Alexander explains the 'motte and bailey doctrine', a rhetorical fallacy, providing examples and comparing it to the 'weak man fallacy'.