Thanks for all your great work Lizka. I learned a lot working with you- especially from the example of focus and dedication that you gave. I'd love to get a chance to work together again in the future. 

Also- great post! 

I currently agree pretty strongly, because the basic case for the quantity of animal suffering in factory farms is very strong. My uncertainty is over the tractability, and I hope to learn more about that, and adjust my vote, during the week. 

The Debate Week banner is under construction... get your takes ready for Monday morning!

In the mean time, you can brush up on the reading list in the announcement post, or respond to this post with ideas for posts you'd like to see next week. 

That's fair enough Leo! It's definitely not just you. But if that was my only goal, I'd probably run a survey rather than a debate week. During this week we are hoping to see conversations which change minds, which means juggling a few goals. 

Maybe in the future (no promises) we will introduce polls or debate sliders to add in posts, and then we could get more niche and precise data. 

Thanks Leo! I remember your comment from last time, it's a fair point. 

We did consider framing the question exactly like that (i.e. splitting 100m between the two), but I decided against it. The main reason was that a vote would actually seem to project far more certainty if you had to give a precise number than with this question, which might introduce a far higher barrier to voting. The reason we have voting in a debate week is not to produce a perfectly accurate aggregation of everyone's opinion (though, all else equal, a more accurate aggregation is better), but rather to encourage and enable valuable conversation on crucial questions. So a question that is framed in a way which still makes sense and represents a preference, but will get more votes, is probably a better one. 

I do understand that the meaning of a vote is ambiguous, but this is why we are introducing commenting, so you can explain the reason behind your vote. Hopefully, this means that ambiguities like the one you mention won't matter too much. 
 

Yep- there is a trade-off in the sense that the money will go to one, and the other will miss out. I wasn't very clear in my previous comment- sorry!
What I meant is that we ideally aren't pitting human and animal welfare against each other. Most arguments, I expect, will be claiming that giving the money in one direction will increase welfare overall. In fact, this increase in welfare will accrue to either animals or humans, but the question was never "which is more deserving of welfare", it was "which option will produce the most welfare". Does that make it clearer? It's a subtler point than I thought while making it. 

I've just been informed that "global health and wellbeing" actually is intended by OP to include animal welfare- so I'm disagree-reacting the above comment.