Hacker News Reader

Comment by atonse | Hacker News Reader

I love this idea – of an actual, genuine debate on this topic where an actual corporate executive can make some points (I know they will be Tim-Cook-like spin but debate is better than asynchronous speeches where people talk at each other)

Update: I realized I didn't write the second half of my sentence... which makes me sound like a corporate shill.

The second half is... AND someone on the other side can immediately call bullshit on their spin, but we can have a proper debate on the inadequacy of current Federal tax policy.

View on HN

Eh, real-time live debates are terrible formats for this because they encourage and reward Gish Gallops. This is why scientists stopped debating creationists, because they discovered through repeated trials that it just rewards people who have less shame and are always willing to spout more lies. In theory, the other guy can call BS, but generally it takes a little bit of time, even with Google, to figure out where the lie is, and then even longer to explain it, by which point the liar simply moves on to another one.

That's mostly the case, though it's possible to have substantive real-time debate.

You need a strong format, with ample time and good faith actors who will steel man each other's positions instead of strawmanning them.

So ultimately you have both sides debating the strongest version of the opposing side. Here's an example: https://youtu.be/m0-oC_49fq4?t=195

In my opinion, debates are all about spin. They're too short to allow proper analysis of the responses, and mostly concern the personalities of the people.

Two examples: T.H. Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce, and a round-table I once attended with Dijkstra and Larry Loucks of IBM, along with a couple of other professors who were completely outclassed by those two. EWD was slow and very precise, it was clear that he was thinking deeply about the topics, but he didn't actually say much in the time alloted; Larry was fast, facile, and rather shallow, he was of the IBM style (he who talks loudest is in charge).

I agree that typical debates are far from perfect, but NY Times and many other media outlets are reporting a very biased slant on this topic. There’s effectively only one voice on the debate stage.

We’ve seen this many times before. A cartoon character of a complex issue is created, and the media pump out clickbait stories based on that.

What’s the most effective way to motivate a more accurate discussion of this topic?

Well only if an explanation about how these companies arrive at these low tax payments. It is one thing to say "You did it too" but the public cannot be properly served unless we have a factual discussion of why their tax payments are this low and the benefits to both the company and public at large are shown.

eighty thousand plus pages of tax laws aren't meant to be simply to understand nor do the outcomes always make sense. the NYT would better serve the public showing just how abusive the tax law is because it mostly it is a political tool for calling in favors and punishing those who don't play ball besides being a revenue tool.

It would be great to have a few fact sheets sent through beforehand, and main questions published and moderated properly, as opposed to a political high level back and forth solving nothing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com