These are not (necessarily) our actual positions, these are positions we were randomly assigned, and for which we searched for the strongest arguments we could find, over the course of ~1 hr 45 mins.
Why do this? Do you have some hope that this will do something different or better than people expressing their actual beliefs and the reasons for them?
I was recently sold on this being a valuable practice, not for the audience, but for the practitioners. Someone (with debate club experience) argued that a debate club where you have to argue for positions you don’t hold forces you develop the muscles of stepping outside your current frame/headspace and actually avoid soldier mindset for yourself.
This too. In the format I’ve been using, both participants spend 15 mins going on a walk thinking about the subject before they know which side they’re arguing. These walks have been one of the more intense periods in my life of desperately searching for a contrary perspective from the default one that I bring to a subject, because I might be about to have to quickly provide strong arguments for it to someone I respect, and I’ve found it quite productive for seeking ways that I might be wrong.
Something about it feels like a nice split of responsibilities. “I’ll look for the arguments and evidence for, you look for the arguments and evidence against, and I trust we’ll cover the whole space well.”
Having a slight competition gives me a lot of added energy for searching through arguments about a subject.
I think it makes it less about “me” and more about “the domain”. I don’t have to be tracking what it is that I am personally signaling, because I’m here running a search process as well as I can, not making claims about my personal beliefs.
Why do this? Do you have some hope that this will do something different or better than people expressing their actual beliefs and the reasons for them?
I was recently sold on this being a valuable practice, not for the audience, but for the practitioners. Someone (with debate club experience) argued that a debate club where you have to argue for positions you don’t hold forces you develop the muscles of stepping outside your current frame/headspace and actually avoid soldier mindset for yourself.
This too. In the format I’ve been using, both participants spend 15 mins going on a walk thinking about the subject before they know which side they’re arguing. These walks have been one of the more intense periods in my life of desperately searching for a contrary perspective from the default one that I bring to a subject, because I might be about to have to quickly provide strong arguments for it to someone I respect, and I’ve found it quite productive for seeking ways that I might be wrong.
Yes, for a bunch of reasons!
Something about it feels like a nice split of responsibilities. “I’ll look for the arguments and evidence for, you look for the arguments and evidence against, and I trust we’ll cover the whole space well.”
Having a slight competition gives me a lot of added energy for searching through arguments about a subject.
I think it makes it less about “me” and more about “the domain”. I don’t have to be tracking what it is that I am personally signaling, because I’m here running a search process as well as I can, not making claims about my personal beliefs.