Has anyone seen a “group debate,” where a group will decide on one point to put forward, and then another group will spend time coming up with a response, and then the first group will decide a response to that, and so on?
I was thinking of a conversational pattern I’ve seen, where one person will put forward an odd claim to a group, and then multiple members of the group will ask questions / make counterarguments to try to knock down the claim, but often in an uncoordinated way. That made me think of Kasparov Versus the World, where one player would come up with chess moves for white and a bulletin board would come up with chess moves for black, compared to one chess player simultaneously playing, say, twenty people at once, each playing a different set of black pieces. The first tends to make for much more impressive games and analysis, since one side is taking advantage of collective intelligence instead of individual mediocrity.
But while it’s easy for games, it might be hard for arguments. Someone could easily model Kasparov’s moves, but someone couldn’t easily model potential arguments that someone else could make. (Then it seems like the various argument wikis that have been constructed are the more appropriate format.)
Has anyone seen a “group debate,” where a group will decide on one point to put forward, and then another group will spend time coming up with a response, and then the first group will decide a response to that, and so on?
I was thinking of a conversational pattern I’ve seen, where one person will put forward an odd claim to a group, and then multiple members of the group will ask questions / make counterarguments to try to knock down the claim, but often in an uncoordinated way. That made me think of Kasparov Versus the World, where one player would come up with chess moves for white and a bulletin board would come up with chess moves for black, compared to one chess player simultaneously playing, say, twenty people at once, each playing a different set of black pieces. The first tends to make for much more impressive games and analysis, since one side is taking advantage of collective intelligence instead of individual mediocrity.
But while it’s easy for games, it might be hard for arguments. Someone could easily model Kasparov’s moves, but someone couldn’t easily model potential arguments that someone else could make. (Then it seems like the various argument wikis that have been constructed are the more appropriate format.)