Wouldn’t it be fun to have as an outcome goal to define and refine the most appealing argument (on one or both sides) when run against the live audience? You’d have to set the voting up differently at the start and finish of the debate, but it ought to be possible to create a more collaborative. Other academics, for instance, have said to me, ‘I don’t agree with that, but i think if you want to say that, this would be a better way to structure your argument.’
Interesting that your current top theory is very similar to how some court rooms and most statutory inquiries are set up. The witness or advocate presents their case, then the investigator (often a judge) will ask them questions. Either with both sides present (e.g. in a court case) or one witness at a time (e.g. in an inquiry).
I enjoyed this!
Happy to see experimentation here.
This is sort of obvious, but I'm quite curious how LLMs could fit in. I could imagine automating parts of the moderation and question asking.
I've thought about having a live whisper transcription that picks up key points and puts them on a board. I think many things would be too slow.
Tracking speaking time would be nice.
Wouldn’t it be fun to have as an outcome goal to define and refine the most appealing argument (on one or both sides) when run against the live audience? You’d have to set the voting up differently at the start and finish of the debate, but it ought to be possible to create a more collaborative. Other academics, for instance, have said to me, ‘I don’t agree with that, but i think if you want to say that, this would be a better way to structure your argument.’
How are you gonna do that live polling without the debate being very slow and broken up. But yes, I think interesting.
I’d have thought real-time polling was the least of your problems. Enjoy…
Interesting that your current top theory is very similar to how some court rooms and most statutory inquiries are set up. The witness or advocate presents their case, then the investigator (often a judge) will ask them questions. Either with both sides present (e.g. in a court case) or one witness at a time (e.g. in an inquiry).
Yes. I think it's a pretty good structure. And suggests theories on how such systems could improve.
- Prime Minister's Questions could have stronger moderation from the speaker.
- Courts could have stronger moderation from the judge, perhaps to require the lawyers to make something clear.
But these systems don't rely on good faith between the participants particularly or especially good participants.