The usual way of debates consists of people in opposing viewpoints arguing for their viewpoints.
But what if instead of doing that, a debate is started off by each party being tasked to articulate the perspective and arguments of the other one?
And after each articulation of an argument, the opposing side will be given the chance to either confirm if the articulation is an accurate representation of their worldview or correct it.
Each round:
Opponent articulation
One side articulates the other side’s position as a list of claims.
Point-by-point acceptance
The opponent must explicitly mark each claim as:
Accepted, or
Rejected (with a correction)
One-shot correction rule
The opponent gets exactly one correction pass.
No iterative negotiation, no global veto.
Roles switch
Only after both sides complete this phase does substantive argument proceed.
This rule set:
Prevents infinite loops
Prevents “that’s not my view at all” vetoes
Requires little moderator discretion
What this does:
Parties are incentivized to have a good understanding of the opposing viewpoint.
It enables the detection of who has a higher level of understanding. If Person A can predict all of what Person B will say but B cannot do the same for A, that means A understands something that B does not and it becomes a question worth asking why A has a differing belief than B despite knowing everything that B does.