
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/09/2019-adversarial-collaboration-entries/
Thanks to everyone who sent in entries for the 2019 adversarial collaboration contest.
Remember, an adversarial collaboration is where two people with opposite views on a controversial issue work together to present a unified summary of the evidence and its implications. In theory it's a good way to make sure you hear the strongest arguments and counterarguments for both sides – like hearing a debate between experts, except all the debate and rhetoric and disagreement have already been done by the time you start reading, so you're just left with the end result. See the 2018 entries for examples.
Six teams submitted collaborations for this year's contest. I'll list them here for now, and the names will turn into links as I post them over the next two weeks. They are:
1. "Is infant circumcision ethical?" by Joel P and Missingno
2. "Is eating meat a net harm?" by David G and Froolow
3. "Does calorie restriction slow aging?" by Adrian L and Calvin R
4. "Should we colonize space to mitigate x-risk?" by Nick D and Rob S
5. "Should gene editing technologies be used in humans" by Nita J and Patrick N
6. "Will automation lead to economic crisis?" by Doug S and Erusian
(if any of you are unhappy with how I named you or titled your piece, let me know)
At the end of the two weeks, I'll ask readers to vote for their favorite collaboration, so try to remember which ones impress you. I think we're all winners by getting to read these – but the actual winners get that plus $2500 in prize money. Thanks again to everyone who donates to the Patreon for making that possible.
Please put any comments about the contest itself here, not on the individual entries.
By Jeremiah4.8
129129 ratings
Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/09/2019-adversarial-collaboration-entries/
Thanks to everyone who sent in entries for the 2019 adversarial collaboration contest.
Remember, an adversarial collaboration is where two people with opposite views on a controversial issue work together to present a unified summary of the evidence and its implications. In theory it's a good way to make sure you hear the strongest arguments and counterarguments for both sides – like hearing a debate between experts, except all the debate and rhetoric and disagreement have already been done by the time you start reading, so you're just left with the end result. See the 2018 entries for examples.
Six teams submitted collaborations for this year's contest. I'll list them here for now, and the names will turn into links as I post them over the next two weeks. They are:
1. "Is infant circumcision ethical?" by Joel P and Missingno
2. "Is eating meat a net harm?" by David G and Froolow
3. "Does calorie restriction slow aging?" by Adrian L and Calvin R
4. "Should we colonize space to mitigate x-risk?" by Nick D and Rob S
5. "Should gene editing technologies be used in humans" by Nita J and Patrick N
6. "Will automation lead to economic crisis?" by Doug S and Erusian
(if any of you are unhappy with how I named you or titled your piece, let me know)
At the end of the two weeks, I'll ask readers to vote for their favorite collaboration, so try to remember which ones impress you. I think we're all winners by getting to read these – but the actual winners get that plus $2500 in prize money. Thanks again to everyone who donates to the Patreon for making that possible.
Please put any comments about the contest itself here, not on the individual entries.

32,314 Listeners

2,111 Listeners

2,673 Listeners

26,350 Listeners

4,283 Listeners

2,459 Listeners

2,279 Listeners

905 Listeners

293 Listeners

4,200 Listeners

1,624 Listeners

309 Listeners

3,833 Listeners

531 Listeners

637 Listeners