TL;DR: I'm looking for a system to facilitate quick (one-hour), collaborative truth-seeking sessions for groups with strong disagreements—something more constructive than traditional debates and suitable for a remote work environment.
Background
In my organization, we face significant internal disagreements about strategy. As a remote organization, much of our current debating happens online. For some, this has negatively affected work enjoyment and organizational culture (though not everyone feels this way).
A colleague recently suggested organizing live debates—on calls —to address these disagreements. While I find this idea intriguing because it shifts discussions to a more live format, I’m concerned that debates often entrench differences rather than fostering collaborative truth-seeking. This aligns with both my personal experience and research I think I remember 😅.
What I'm Looking For
I’m searching for a systematized approach to group truth-seeking that is more constructive than traditional debates. Ideally, it would:
I vaguely recall Will MacAskill proposing an idea to replace traditional debate clubs with truth-seeking-oriented clubs in schools or universities, but I haven’t been able to locate the original suggestion.
Double-cruxing also came to mind as a possible solution. While it’s already quite close to what I’m envisioning, it seems primarily designed for resolving one-on-one disagreements. I’d love to find something that scales better to group settings and has a collaborative, constructive approach.
Given the innovative and resourceful nature of this community, I thought this would be the perfect place to ask for advice. If you’ve encountered any systems, methods, or frameworks for group truth-seeking—especially in the context of disagreement—I’d greatly appreciate your suggestions! 😄
Thanks in advance for your insights!
I don't think multiperson disagreements are in general a tractable problem for one hour sessions. It sounds like you need someone in charge to enable disagree then commit, rather than a better way to argue.