Debate

For reference: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

BDFL of Quilibrium, Eng @ Farcaster, ex-Coinbase, always opinionated, never hydrated

/quilibrium

editor-in-chief @eic.eth hosting /rileybeans /community /printmedia & co-host /words /gaycoinz 

see more here 👉🏻 https://seemore.tv/rileybeans

Paul Graham: https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

july

I appreciate when we examine a conventional idea, debunk it, present an alternative, and then defend that new perspective. On social media, it's common to skip straight to the unconventional idea, as though conventional challenges never existed. This mental bypass isn't exclusive to social media.
https://x.com/paulg/status/1802303430322471025

Funny:

https://warpcast.com/brittkim.eth/0x0ac65709

$DEGEN

Let's do something... starting a mission...
let's see how it ends.. 🎩

there is no way for refutation here :)

Your cast has been selected to be part of my qDAU tipping mission :)

42 $DEGEN (cast 8)

there is no way for refutation here :)

Your cast has been selected to be part of my qDAU tipping mission :)

42 $DEGEN (cast 8)

https://warpcast.com/j-valeska/0x688d2783

I’ll be surprised if we make it to blue

You can split the top triangle in many forms of refutation. In order of decreasing seriousness/fundamentalness

1. disagreement in perspective: the parties disagree about what the core trade off is

2. in calculation: parties disagree about how much X trades against Y

3. in values: parties disagree about how much to trade off

everything disagreement today seems to just sit in the orange

Should we start at the bottom and work our way up? ￼

I needed this in my life.
Recognizing people’s actions is key!