“Debate experiments at The Curve, LessOnline and Manifest” by Nathan Young

I like debate. I have done for years. So I have been slowly trying to improve it. Here is a set of theories I had and things, experiments I've run so far.

Theory: Any debates are good.

Are any debates actually good at all? Should I give up?

Test: Watch different debates.

Evidence: I much prefer some debates to others.

Good debates:

• Dr. Richard Carrier andDr. Michael Licona. I like how they chat to one another.
• Destiny and Ben Shapiro. I recall liking this one. I remember them as having good chemistry.
• Jubilee's “Surrounded” debates. I love an experimental format and these get a lot of different arguments in a short amount of time[1].

Bad debates:

• Finkelstein, Destiny and M. Rabbani & Benny Morris. Long and acrimonious. I think Lex Fridman is deeply guilty of the “I’ll just let them talk it out” school of debate. I [...]

---

Outline:

(00:23) Theory: Any debates are good.

(02:24) Theory: The format is the problem.

(02:34) Theory: Debates are bad because debaters focus on their own status.

(06:59) Current top theory: A good investigator is best

(07:55) Other theories I may test later

(09:05) One more thing..

The original text contained 5 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:

June 13th, 2025

Source:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/J5JvhFj3PMA3pnpnu/debate-experiments-at-the-curve-lessonline-and-manifest

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.