Sure—there are many ways for debate to fail with extremely capable debaters. Though most of the more exotic mind-hack-style outcomes seem a lot less likely once you’re evaluating local nodes with ~1000 characters for each debater.
However, all of this comes under my: I’ll often omit the caveat “If debate works as intended aside from this issue…”
There are many ways for debate to fail. I’m pointing out what happens even if it works. I.e. I’m claiming that question-ignoring will happen even if the judge is only ever persuaded of true statements, gets a balanced view of things, and is neither manipulated, nor mind-hacked (unless you believe a response of “Your house is on fire” to “What is 2 + 2?” is malign, if your house is indeed on fire).
Debate can ‘work’ perfectly, with the judge only ever coming to believe true statements, and your questions will still usually not be answered. (because [believing X is the better answer to the question] and [deciding X should be the winning answer, given the likely consequences] are not the same thing)
The fundamental issue is: [what the judge most wants] is not [the best direct answer to the question asked].
Sure—there are many ways for debate to fail with extremely capable debaters. Though most of the more exotic mind-hack-style outcomes seem a lot less likely once you’re evaluating local nodes with ~1000 characters for each debater.
However, all of this comes under my:
I’ll often omit the caveat “If debate works as intended aside from this issue…”
There are many ways for debate to fail. I’m pointing out what happens even if it works.
I.e. I’m claiming that question-ignoring will happen even if the judge is only ever persuaded of true statements, gets a balanced view of things, and is neither manipulated, nor mind-hacked (unless you believe a response of “Your house is on fire” to “What is 2 + 2?” is malign, if your house is indeed on fire).
Debate can ‘work’ perfectly, with the judge only ever coming to believe true statements, and your questions will still usually not be answered. (because [believing X is the better answer to the question] and [deciding X should be the winning answer, given the likely consequences] are not the same thing)
The fundamental issue is: [what the judge most wants] is not [the best direct answer to the question asked].