Constructive debates are the ones where one side brings inconsistencies of the other side’s arguments to the foreground and tries to defeat the other side’s point of view. Endless debates, on the other hand, are the ones where each side insists on their sides consistently without any clear winner. In evolution, it’s critical that some strategies defeat other strategies. the same should be true in this platform. That’s comparable to a battle in court. The defence team for example might come up with a trap for the other side hoping that they might build on top of that and then reveal the inconsistency. Or they might incorporate other strategies. The aim is to win over the other side’s viewpoint. The defeated viewpoint is like a defeated troop they might reorganize and deploy a new strategy for a comeback.
The battle to evolve a point of view discussed here is inspired by court battles. Each side should look for inconsistency or potential attack points to the other side’s viewpoint in a systematic way. All people, every day, use algorithmic thinking. But they don’t know it. For example, they might say “If I can get out of home before 8, I’ll walk to work, else I’ll use public transport'” This is very basic algorithmic thinking. If they do it knowingly they can build on top of that and design more complicated algorithms. The same is true about debates. If people use systematic methods to reveal inconsistencies and shortcomings of the other side’s viewpoint, they can develop that. So the game mentioned yesterday is very similar to the conventional strategy games but instead of troops and things like that, gamers are working with arguments.