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.
Eight teams submitted collaborations for this year’s contest:
1. “What are the benefits, harms, and ethics of infant circumcision?” 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. “When during fetal development does abortion become morally wrong?” by BlockOfNihilism and Icerun
7. “Will automation lead to economic crisis?” by Doug S and Erusian
8. “How much significance should we ascribe to spiritual experiences?” by Seth S and Jeremiah G
(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.
