ABOUT THE PROJECT
We live in a cacophony. Our dominant media business model — based on maximizing engagement — is polluting our information commons, resulting in shorter attention spans, binary thinking, and hyper-polarization.
In theory, public debates should strengthen democracy, by exposing citizens to diverse perspectives and reasoned arguments. But in practice, debates are further polarizing us, as debaters straw-man each other to score points for their tribe. Recent U.S. presidential debates may not even qualify as actual debates, since participants are engaged less in a structured back-and-forth about opposing views, and more in an unstructured barrage of attack lines. Quoting The Consilience Project, "when open communication cannot be used to resolve conflict and coordinate behavior, societies are driven towards chaos, war, oppression, and authoritarianism."
Meanwhile, humanity has a rich legacy of dialogic practices. Throughout history, wisdom traditions worldwide have developed unique forms of cooperative argumentation, such as Jesuit disputation, Tibetan Buddhist debate, Talmudic havrutah, and Socratic dialogue.
In theory, public debates should strengthen democracy, by exposing citizens to diverse perspectives and reasoned arguments. But in practice, debates are further polarizing us, as debaters straw-man each other to score points for their tribe. Recent U.S. presidential debates may not even qualify as actual debates, since participants are engaged less in a structured back-and-forth about opposing views, and more in an unstructured barrage of attack lines. Quoting The Consilience Project, "when open communication cannot be used to resolve conflict and coordinate behavior, societies are driven towards chaos, war, oppression, and authoritarianism."
Meanwhile, humanity has a rich legacy of dialogic practices. Throughout history, wisdom traditions worldwide have developed unique forms of cooperative argumentation, such as Jesuit disputation, Tibetan Buddhist debate, Talmudic havrutah, and Socratic dialogue.
|
With havrutah, the Talmud is deliberately studied not alone but in pairs, because it’s by virtue of having different perspectives that students sharpen each other’s intellect. With Socratic dialogue, probing questions are used to stimulate critical thinking, and have become a foundational element of Western philosophical and educational traditions.
In more modern times, the Oxford-style debate emerged to enable rigorous yet productive argumentation, and has been adopted in academic and public debate settings around the world. |
|
It’s time to draw from our legacy of dialogic wisdom, and innovate a debate format that can meet the moment.
Introducing the Anti-Debate — a new (and evolving) format for debate where participants build off each other's perspectives — co-creating a more comprehensive view of the topic of debate.
Introducing the Anti-Debate — a new (and evolving) format for debate where participants build off each other's perspectives — co-creating a more comprehensive view of the topic of debate.
|
The Anti-Debate derives its name from William MacAskill, philosopher and co-founder of Effective Altruism. In 2017, he proposed "anti-debates" as an alternative to traditional debates, which would prioritize logic over rhetoric, and seeking truth over defending positions. In 2019, Peter Limberg and Conor Barnes further popularized the term in an article that imagined how anti-debates might transform the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Since 2022, think tank Perspectiva has been experimenting with its own form of antidebate.
|
Now production studio Synthesis Media is taking a stab. Humbly, the Anti-Debate you find on this website is simply one potential manifestation of the original idea. Given the need for innovation in public discourse, may a million anti-debate flowers bloom :)
For Synthesis Media, the goal of the Anti-Debate isn't to change minds, but to expand minds. To move from common ground to higher ground. By exploring an issue from unique vantage points, a more complex picture can emerge, and in turn, expand our capacity to hold further complexity.
For Synthesis Media, the goal of the Anti-Debate isn't to change minds, but to expand minds. To move from common ground to higher ground. By exploring an issue from unique vantage points, a more complex picture can emerge, and in turn, expand our capacity to hold further complexity.
|
Competition is optional in an Anti-Debate, but if employed, it's a device in service of what's ultimately a collaboration. We're on the same team to sharpen each other's intellect. Echoing the Hebrew Bible, "as iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another."
|
The Anti-Debate is a debate that everyone can win. |
More broadly, the goal of the Anti-Debate is to preserve the possibility of public discourse itself. Robust public discourse enables our democracy to make sense of our shared challenges and take action to address them. Bad-faith debates throw a wet towel on the genre whereas good-faith debates engender further debate. Put simply: the object of the (public discourse) game is to keep playing.
Ultimately, the Anti-Debate is a debate that everyone can win.
The Anti-Debate has two natural audiences: media hosts and educators. Currently, when media hosts and educators seek to engage diverse perspectives, their main tool is classic debate. The Anti-Debate offers a new tool they can use to engage ideological diversity in a generative way.
Ultimately, the Anti-Debate is a debate that everyone can win.
The Anti-Debate has two natural audiences: media hosts and educators. Currently, when media hosts and educators seek to engage diverse perspectives, their main tool is classic debate. The Anti-Debate offers a new tool they can use to engage ideological diversity in a generative way.
|
As a case in point, in 2024 Lex Fridman hosted a debate between Right pundit Ben Shapiro and Left pundit Destiny. It received 12M views, despite Shapiro and Destiny largely talking past each other. Imagine if for round 2, Fridman moderated an Anti-Debate. Shapiro and Destiny would have to steel-man each other's arguments, poke holes in their own, and explore how they might integrate their perspectives. Everyone would win!
|
That said, the Anti-Debate is available to anyone! If you're a member of an ideologically diverse organization, team, or other community, and you seek to engage that diversity productively, the Anti-Debate is for you.
On this website, you’ll find what you need to learn about the Anti-Debate, host your own, and remix the format. To host your own Anti-Debate, watch the Demo and use the How-To Guide. For context on how the Anti-Debate compares to other types of discourse, check out the Discourse Matrix. To learn about the Jewish roots of the Anti-Debate, visit Jewish Wisdom. For a press kit and select coverage, visit Press. If you'd like to have an Anti-Debate facilitated for your team or community, be in touch with Anti-Debate creator Stephanie Lepp: [email protected]
On this website, you’ll find what you need to learn about the Anti-Debate, host your own, and remix the format. To host your own Anti-Debate, watch the Demo and use the How-To Guide. For context on how the Anti-Debate compares to other types of discourse, check out the Discourse Matrix. To learn about the Jewish roots of the Anti-Debate, visit Jewish Wisdom. For a press kit and select coverage, visit Press. If you'd like to have an Anti-Debate facilitated for your team or community, be in touch with Anti-Debate creator Stephanie Lepp: [email protected]
|
For now, the Anti-Debate is offered as an MVP — a format for two individuals, which can be moderated or not, and competitive or not. But the format is evolving, and future possibilities are vast.
Imagine a format for more than two individuals, which would therefore represent more than two perspectives. Imagine a format for pairs instead of individuals, where pairs anti-debate against each other. Imagine a podcast or live event series predicated on using the Anti-Debate format. Imagine a board game that translates the Anti-Debate into a fun social activity! If you’d like to help bring new Anti-Debate possibilities to life, through funding or otherwise, please join Patreon or be in touch. |
|
In its own small way, the Anti-Debate seeks to strengthen our democracy’s capacity for sense-making and choice-making.
This should be done as if the future of civilization depends on it—because it does. |
And like anything, the Anti-Debate can be weaponized. Again quoting The Consilience Project, “individuals must therefore continually innovate in their approach to communication. We must work together always to find new ways to break the hegemony of bad faith. This should be done as if the future of civilization depends on it—because it does.”
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Anti-Debate was created with the generous support of Common Era, an R&D platform that invents new Jewish realities by catalyzing the work of creators, builders, entrepreneurs, and research partners. It is a project of Synthesis Media, an independent production studio fiscally sponsored by the Mediators Foundation. Synthesis Media is led by producer and storyteller Stephanie Lepp.
Special thanks to: Mediators Foundation, Peter Limberg, Jonah Sachs, Jay Hirschton, Alex Randall, Andy Mills, Alex Grodd, David Gurteen, Abi Dauber Sterne, Layman Pascal, Shereef Bishay, Peter Barrett, Stephen Hawkins, Gracie LaRue, Jessie Mannisto, Jim Rutt, Fraser How, Elie Holzer, Christopher Phillips, and Debbie Newman.
Special thanks to: Mediators Foundation, Peter Limberg, Jonah Sachs, Jay Hirschton, Alex Randall, Andy Mills, Alex Grodd, David Gurteen, Abi Dauber Sterne, Layman Pascal, Shereef Bishay, Peter Barrett, Stephen Hawkins, Gracie LaRue, Jessie Mannisto, Jim Rutt, Fraser How, Elie Holzer, Christopher Phillips, and Debbie Newman.
BIO
Stephanie Lepp is an award-winning producer, storyteller, and speaker. She's the former Executive Producer at the Center for Humane Technology, the organization at the heart of the Netflix documentary, The Social Dilemma. She now leads Synthesis Media, an independent production studio devoted to expanding hearts and minds. Stephanie's work has been supported by institutions like Sundance and the Mozilla Foundation, and exhibited throughout the United States and Europe.
Stephanie's previous production is Faces of X — a series of short videos that integrate different perspectives on culture war issues. Her current production is The Anti-Debate — a new format for debate where participants co-creating a more comprehensive view of the topic of debate.
Stephanie's previous production is Faces of X — a series of short videos that integrate different perspectives on culture war issues. Her current production is The Anti-Debate — a new format for debate where participants co-creating a more comprehensive view of the topic of debate.
The Anti-Debate by Stephanie Lepp is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
