I was thinking about setting up a pub where we could have a proper debate about politics and geopolitics.

I was thinking that the first topic could be "Be it resolved that NATO caused the Russia/Ukraine War."

---------------

Note the word "proper."

Proper debates require both sides to list their points for the resolution. Then each side would challenge the points made by the other side.

With a proper "point<---->counter point" exchange, observers can evaluate both sides of the argument.

If a point is made and challenged, then the observer can evaluate both sides of the argument on the merit of logic, reasoning, and facts presented. If a point is made, but not challenged, then the "point-making" side wins that particular argument by default.

I see a lot of "not challenging good points" quite common on Medium and other internet forums. It seems if Person A makes a good point which Person B does not like, the strategy of Person B is to ignore that point.

This not a debate. We can only wonder why Person B chose this strategy.

--------------------

I considered this idea for a few days.

Then I remembered the three books I want to write in the next two years. Managing this pub would take away from that task.

Then I remember that ALL OF US have faulty reasoning. We all have our share of cognitive dissonance, cognitive bias, and Dunning-Kruger Effect internalized. My ultimate goal is to build a new democracy where our political leaders can work past these psychological conditions. I'm not sure how managing such a pub is going to help.

---------------

Maybe I'll rethink this again. But thanks for the inspiration.

---------------

I have just read a book from a quasi-philosopher. His point is that most of us are wrong most of the time. My review of this book should be published within the week.