I think I get the idea of a kind of bounty on debate participation, but the logistics need more work.

Less charitably, however, as soon as Logosive takes off a bit, the existing debating venues (news channels, big podcasts, etc.) can just look at what debate ideas are popular and make them happen, with the promise of a bigger paycheck and a bigger audience.

Can't really find a moat for Logosive here.

When I initially read your comment, I agreed with it. But, on second thought, if the site is presented as a sort of Kickstarter for debates where people are funding something they hope will happen, I think it might work. It is important that this is clearly communicated though.

For example, 99% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and human-caused, but - oh! - we need to be fair and balanced so we'll give time to the other side that has tons of untested and unproven crackpot theories about maybe that's just what climates do and we just shouldn't bother trying to do better.

Likewise with 'vaccines cause autism'. There's no scientific evidence whatsoever to show any link whatsoever, but we need to be balanced so we have to give time to both sides.

The headline example on their site is 'are seed oils healthy?' Assuming an agreed-upon definition of 'healthy', this shouldn't be a debate. Are they good for you in moderation or not? Let's look at the science. Oh, they're fine? Great, debate over.

They also have "AGI in 5 years?" What's to debate there? Sure, it's possible, who knows? What's the point in debating whether or not something might happen?

If it were 'will AGI be beneficial for humanity?' then okay, that could be a debate, but none of these topics I'm seeing are good fodder for debate; just arguments or baseless assertions.

One debate format I'd like to see on Logosive is asynchronous debate, similar to the Federalist Papers, where the debaters submit their positions and rebuttals to each other as written statements, over the course of weeks. I think this format could align with more of a truth-seeking type of debate, and Logosive can already support this format.

The last debate that changed my mind on anything was about 20 years ago. It was a structured debate regarding marriage equality. The negative team, included a wildcard, a poly bisexual woman, whose relationship would still be ignored by the government after the change. She argued, very successfully in my opinion, that moving the bar one step made no sense, and the government simply shouldnt have a favoured relationship status at all.

Since then I cant think of any. However, I also cant think of another proper structured debate I have seen.

Debates are pure entertainment, often misunderstood as fact, and often purely to manipulate.

I’ve also seen a surge of interest in debate outside just political debate, especially on platforms like Jubilee, podcasts, and X spaces.