# A Plan to Improve the World: 20 Rational Debate Advocates

**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/a-plan-to-improve-the-world-20-rational-debate-advocates/1851
**Category:** Unbounded
**Created:** [July 15, 2023, 6:57pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/a-plan-to-improve-the-world-20-rational-debate-advocates/1851 "2023-07-15T18:57:03Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 47

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [November 18, 2025, 2:29am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/a-plan-to-improve-the-world-20-rational-debate-advocates/1851/47 "2025-11-18T02:29:33Z")

</div>

> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> I thought we could suggest Zulu to challenge Elliot using his debate policy to get him used to it, but Elliot’s policy is for written debate.

I’m open to some voice debates as long as the format is OK. I think flexibility for debates is important. For format, unstructured talking or a good structure is fine but not:

> [@Intellectuals Don't Debate Much](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/intellectuals-dont-debate-much/2127/7):
>
> My debate format was something like this
> 
> 6 minutes for the affirming side to argue their case,
> 
> (3 minutes of questioning)
> 
> 7 minutes for the negating side to argue their case and **rebut/attack the affirming sides case**
> 
> (3 minutes of questioning)
> 
> 4 minutes for the affirmation to **defend against the attacks on their case and attack the negations case**
> 
> 6 minutes for the **negation to defend** and then present why they should win this round
> 
> 3 minutes for the affirmation to explain why they should win

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/a-plan-to-improve-the-world-20-rational-debate-advocates/1851)._