Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Refusing a good faith debate with an audience of millions of people is silly. Insisting that a good faith debate has to be done in real time is silly. The only salvation for this rotten society is a return to literacy.


> Insisting that a good faith debate has to be done in real time is silly.

A live show has less risk of sections being edited. Why is it silly?


Because it still doesn't provide enough time to verify or refute any claims being made, especially when one sides strategy is to make a barrage of claims to trip up the other for as long as possible. If most people saw the use of that tactic as a clear sign of weak arguments and question dodging, it wouldn't be such a silly thing because it would server to expose that. But it turns out that kind of thing is a form of entertainment for many people and they like to watch their guy "win" against the other. That's a problem on both sides, but objectively a far more dangerous problem with the topics the right decides to utilize the tactic with.


I had completely misunderstood your point and agree with you.


I'm not OP so I can only say I think that was the point they were trying to make.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: