I even explicitly said I am less familiar with BP as a debate format.
The fact that you are unfamiliar with the format, and yet are making a number of claims about it, is pretty much exactly my issue. Lack of familiarity is an anti-excuse for overconfidence.
The OP is about an event conducted in BP. Any future events will presumably also be conducted in BP. Information about other formats is only relevant to the extent that they provide information about BP.
I can understand not realising how large the differences between formats are initially, and so assuming information from other formats has strong relevance at first, which is why I was sympathetic to your original comment, but a bunchofpeople have pointed this out by now.
I expect substantiated criticisms of BP as a truth-seeking device (of which there are many!) to look more like the stuff that Ben Pace is saying here, and less like the things you are writing. In brief, I think the actual biggest issues are:
15-minute prep makes for a better game but for very evidence-light arguments.
Judges are explicitly not supposed to reward applause lights, but they are human, so sometimes they do.
Itās rarely a good idea to explicitly back down, even on an issue you are clearly losing. Instead you end up making a lot of āeven ifā statements. I think Scott did a good job of explaining why thatās not ideal in collaborative discussions (search for āI donāt like the āeven ifā framing.ā).
(1) isnāt really a problem on the meta (read: relevant) level, since itās very obvious; mostly I think this ends up teaching the useful lesson āyou can prove roughly anything with ungrounded argumentsā. (2) and (3) can inculcate actual bad habits, which I would worry about more if EA wasnāt already stuffed full of those habits and if my personal experience didnāt suggest that debaters are pretty good at dropping those habits outside of the debates themselves. Still, I think they are things reasonable people can worry about.
By contrast, criticisms I think mostly donāt make sense:
Goodharting
Anything to the effect of āthe speakers might end up believing what they are sayingā, especially at top levels. Like, these people were randomly assigned positions, have probably been assigned the roughly opposite position at some point, and are not idiots.
Finally, even after a re-read and showing your comment to two other people seeking alternative interpretations, I think you did say the thing you claim not to have said. Perhaps you meant to say something else, in which case Iād suggest editing to say whatever you meant to say. I would suggest an edit myself, but in this case I donāt know what it was you meant to say.
Finally, even after a re-read and showing your comment to two other people seeking alternative interpretations, I think you did say the thing you claim not to have said. Perhaps you meant to say something else, in which case Iād suggest editing to say whatever you meant to say. I would suggest an edit myself, but in this case I donāt know what it was you meant to say.
Iāve edited the relevant section. The edit was simply āThis is also pretty common in other debate formats (though I donāt know how common in BP in particular)ā.
By contrast, criticisms I think mostly donāt make sense:
+ Goodharting + Anything to the effect of āthe speakers might end up believing what they are sayingā, especially at top levels. Like, these people were randomly assigned positions, have probably been assigned the roughly opposite position at some point, and are not idiots.
Alas, those are indeed my primary concerns. Itās of course totally OK if you are not compelled, but I have no idea how you are so confident to dismiss them. Having talked to multiple people who have participated in high-level debate in multiple formats, those are the criticisms that they level as well, including for formats very similar to BP, and for BP in-particular.
I have now watched multiple videos of BP debate, and I wish I didnāt because my guesses of what it would look like were basically right, and I feel like I wasted two hours of my time watching BP debates because you insisted that for some reason I am not allowed to make claims from very nearby points of evidence, even though as far as I can tell after spending those two hours, most of my concerns are on-point and BP looks just like most other forms of debate Iāve seen.
I knew when I wrote the above comment that BP debates look less immediately goodharted. But after engaging more deeply with it, I would be surprised if it is actually much less goodharted. Of course, 4 debates at 2x speed isnāt really enough to judge the whole category, but given that Iāve watched dozens of other debates in multiple other formats, I feel like Iāve pinpointed the type of debate that BP is pretty well in debate space.
Of course, you can insist that only people intimately familiar with the format participate in this discussion, in which case I of course cannot clear that bar, and neither can almost anyone else on the forum (and this will of course heavily select against anyone who is critical of debate).
Let me take a step back. Lookā¦ I feel super frustrated by your comment above. I am trying to contribute a number of points to this discussion that feel important, and you now twice just kind of insinuated that I am unfairly biased or being unreasonable without really backing up your points? Like, your comments have been super stressful, and the associated downvotes have felt pretty bad. I think the arguments Iāve made in my comments are pretty straightforward, I stayed civil, and I donāt think I am being particularly irrational about this topic.
Iāve thought about it for 2-3 dozen hours over the years and at multiple points in the last few years have spent full-time work weeks evaluating whether we should have a debate tradition inside of EA as well, which caused me to think through a lot of the relevant considerations and investigate a substantial number of debate formats. Iāve talked to something like 8 people with extensive debate experience in EA for at least an hour and tried to get a sense of what things worked and what didnāt.
And then you come along and just assert:
Overall, Iām left with the distinct impression that youāve made up your mind on this based on a bad personal experience, and that nothing is likely to change that view.
And thisā¦ just feels really unfair? Indeed, phenomenologically, my debate experiences were great. I didnāt have a random bad experience that somehow soured me towards this whole sport. I was positive on it, and then thought about it for at least a dozen hours in total and overall came to a complicated high-level position that overall was a lot more hesitant. I have separately also thought for at least a literal 1000 by-the-clock-hours about our talent funnels and the epistemic norms I want the community to have and how the two interact.
My position also isnāt categorically opposed to debate at all. Indeed, I am personally likely to cause EA and the Rationality community to have more of a debating institution internally, and continue to feel conflicted about this project. I think itās quite plausible itās good, but I would want the organizers to think hard about how to avoid the problems that seem pretty deeply embedded in debate, and how to avoid them damaging the social institutions of EA, or attract people that might otherwise cause harm.
I donāt know. Itās fine for you to think I am being irrational about this topic, or for some reason to categorically dismiss the kind of concern that I am having, but I donāt feel like youāve really justified either of those assertions, and I perceived them both coming with some kind of social slap-down motion that made participating in this thread much more stressful than necessary. I will disengage for now. I hope the people involved in this project make good choices.
The fact that you are unfamiliar with the format, and yet are making a number of claims about it, is pretty much exactly my issue. Lack of familiarity is an anti-excuse for overconfidence.
The OP is about an event conducted in BP. Any future events will presumably also be conducted in BP. Information about other formats is only relevant to the extent that they provide information about BP.
I can understand not realising how large the differences between formats are initially, and so assuming information from other formats has strong relevance at first, which is why I was sympathetic to your original comment, but a bunch of people have pointed this out by now.
I expect substantiated criticisms of BP as a truth-seeking device (of which there are many!) to look more like the stuff that Ben Pace is saying here, and less like the things you are writing. In brief, I think the actual biggest issues are:
15-minute prep makes for a better game but for very evidence-light arguments.
Judges are explicitly not supposed to reward applause lights, but they are human, so sometimes they do.
Itās rarely a good idea to explicitly back down, even on an issue you are clearly losing. Instead you end up making a lot of āeven ifā statements. I think Scott did a good job of explaining why thatās not ideal in collaborative discussions (search for āI donāt like the āeven ifā framing.ā).
(1) isnāt really a problem on the meta (read: relevant) level, since itās very obvious; mostly I think this ends up teaching the useful lesson āyou can prove roughly anything with ungrounded argumentsā. (2) and (3) can inculcate actual bad habits, which I would worry about more if EA wasnāt already stuffed full of those habits and if my personal experience didnāt suggest that debaters are pretty good at dropping those habits outside of the debates themselves. Still, I think they are things reasonable people can worry about.
By contrast, criticisms I think mostly donāt make sense:
Goodharting
Anything to the effect of āthe speakers might end up believing what they are sayingā, especially at top levels. Like, these people were randomly assigned positions, have probably been assigned the roughly opposite position at some point, and are not idiots.
Finally, even after a re-read and showing your comment to two other people seeking alternative interpretations, I think you did say the thing you claim not to have said. Perhaps you meant to say something else, in which case Iād suggest editing to say whatever you meant to say. I would suggest an edit myself, but in this case I donāt know what it was you meant to say.
Iāve edited the relevant section. The edit was simply āThis is also pretty common in other debate formats (though I donāt know how common in BP in particular)ā.
Alas, those are indeed my primary concerns. Itās of course totally OK if you are not compelled, but I have no idea how you are so confident to dismiss them. Having talked to multiple people who have participated in high-level debate in multiple formats, those are the criticisms that they level as well, including for formats very similar to BP, and for BP in-particular.
I have now watched multiple videos of BP debate, and I wish I didnāt because my guesses of what it would look like were basically right, and I feel like I wasted two hours of my time watching BP debates because you insisted that for some reason I am not allowed to make claims from very nearby points of evidence, even though as far as I can tell after spending those two hours, most of my concerns are on-point and BP looks just like most other forms of debate Iāve seen.
I knew when I wrote the above comment that BP debates look less immediately goodharted. But after engaging more deeply with it, I would be surprised if it is actually much less goodharted. Of course, 4 debates at 2x speed isnāt really enough to judge the whole category, but given that Iāve watched dozens of other debates in multiple other formats, I feel like Iāve pinpointed the type of debate that BP is pretty well in debate space.
Of course, you can insist that only people intimately familiar with the format participate in this discussion, in which case I of course cannot clear that bar, and neither can almost anyone else on the forum (and this will of course heavily select against anyone who is critical of debate).
Let me take a step back. Lookā¦ I feel super frustrated by your comment above. I am trying to contribute a number of points to this discussion that feel important, and you now twice just kind of insinuated that I am unfairly biased or being unreasonable without really backing up your points? Like, your comments have been super stressful, and the associated downvotes have felt pretty bad. I think the arguments Iāve made in my comments are pretty straightforward, I stayed civil, and I donāt think I am being particularly irrational about this topic.
Iāve thought about it for 2-3 dozen hours over the years and at multiple points in the last few years have spent full-time work weeks evaluating whether we should have a debate tradition inside of EA as well, which caused me to think through a lot of the relevant considerations and investigate a substantial number of debate formats. Iāve talked to something like 8 people with extensive debate experience in EA for at least an hour and tried to get a sense of what things worked and what didnāt.
And then you come along and just assert:
And thisā¦ just feels really unfair? Indeed, phenomenologically, my debate experiences were great. I didnāt have a random bad experience that somehow soured me towards this whole sport. I was positive on it, and then thought about it for at least a dozen hours in total and overall came to a complicated high-level position that overall was a lot more hesitant. I have separately also thought for at least a literal 1000 by-the-clock-hours about our talent funnels and the epistemic norms I want the community to have and how the two interact.
My position also isnāt categorically opposed to debate at all. Indeed, I am personally likely to cause EA and the Rationality community to have more of a debating institution internally, and continue to feel conflicted about this project. I think itās quite plausible itās good, but I would want the organizers to think hard about how to avoid the problems that seem pretty deeply embedded in debate, and how to avoid them damaging the social institutions of EA, or attract people that might otherwise cause harm.
I donāt know. Itās fine for you to think I am being irrational about this topic, or for some reason to categorically dismiss the kind of concern that I am having, but I donāt feel like youāve really justified either of those assertions, and I perceived them both coming with some kind of social slap-down motion that made participating in this thread much more stressful than necessary. I will disengage for now. I hope the people involved in this project make good choices.