Marginalia
⚔  the agora

The Debate Hall

Philosophy began as argument in a marketplace. Here are the rules of a good fight — and a timer to run one tonight, across a table or across a video call.

⚔ New: the Debate Arena

Debate a real person on live video from anywhere, with a floor-controlled timer, a live transcript and an AI adjudicator that scores you both out of 100.
The motion
This house believes that the unexamined life is not worth living.
Proposition
4:00
Opposition
4:00

The rules of civil debate

  1. Steelman before you strike. Before rebutting, state your opponent's view so well that they would say "yes — that's exactly what I mean." (Philosophers call this the principle of charity; it goes back to the Socratic dialogues and was named "steelmanning" in our time.)
  2. Attack arguments, never persons. No ad hominem. Thrasymachus's bluster in Book I of the Republic is how not to do it.
  3. Define your terms. Ask the Socratic question — "what do you mean by justice?" — before arguing about it.
  4. Show your premises. Lay out your argument as numbered steps (see the Argument Library). An argument with hidden premises is a magic trick.
  5. Burden of proof lies with the claimant. As Hume said, a wise person proportions belief to the evidence.
  6. Quote accurately — and attribute correctly. Use the Quote Finder: "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" is Marcellus, not Hamlet.
  7. Concede what is true. Aristotle: "Plato is dear to me, but truth is dearer." Conceding a point strengthens your credibility.
  8. Distinguish disagreement about facts from disagreement about values. Hume's is–ought gap.
  9. Silence is allowed. Socratic aporia — admitting "I don't know" — is not defeat but the beginning of wisdom.
  10. Shake hands. Sartre and Camus could not. Be better than Sartre and Camus.

The formats

Oxford-style

A motion ("This house believes…"); two sides of one or two speakers each. Opening speeches alternate Proposition and Opposition, then rebuttals in reverse order, then the audience votes — before and after, so the winner is whoever changed most minds.

Lincoln–Douglas

Named after the 1858 Illinois Senate debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas over slavery — one-on-one, on a question of value. Affirmative constructive, cross-examination, negative constructive, cross-examination, then alternating rebuttals.

Socratic dialogue

One questions, one answers; the questioner may only ask, never assert. The goal is not victory but discovering whether the answerer's beliefs are consistent. Roles swap at half-time.

Indian vāda

Classical Nyāya logic distinguished three kinds of debate: vāda, an honest discussion between teacher and student to find the truth; jalpa, debate to win, using any legitimate trick; and vitaṇḍā, purely destructive cavil without a position of one's own. The great Indian debates — Yājñavalkya at Janaka's court, Śaṅkara and Maṇḍana Miśra — were public events with judges. Aim for vāda.

Coming: the live Agora

Marginalia will grow a community: accounts, discussion threads on every page, private conversations between readers, and scheduled live debates on great motions with moderators, audience votes and archived recordings. Until then, this hall and its timer are yours to use around a table or on a video call.