The Case for SuperDebate: Why I'm Building Infrastructure for Disagreement
We've lost the ability to disagree productively. Social media rewards outrage, news rewards certainty. Here's why I left tech to build debate clubs, and the philosophy behind the model.
John Connor
Technology Strategist
The ability to disagree productively is the scarcest skill in modern life, and there's no infrastructure to develop it. SuperDebate builds that infrastructure: local clubs, structured formats, and competitive tournaments. The goal is making "going to debate" as normal as going to the gym.
The Skill That Predicts Everything
I've hired hundreds of people. The single best predictor of long-term success wasn't technical skill, pedigree, or even raw intelligence. It was the ability to disagree productively—to argue without alienating, to update beliefs based on evidence, to hold positions loosely while defending them vigorously.
This skill has a name: productive disagreement. And we're losing it.
Productive disagreement isn't just "being civil." It's the ability to:
1. Understand opposing views well enough to articulate them
2. Identify genuine cruxes (the beliefs that actually drive disagreement)
3. Update your position when evidence warrants it
4. Maintain relationships with people you disagree with
The Evidence of Decline
This isn't nostalgia. The data is clear:
- 2x Political polarization has doubled since 1994 (Pew Research)
- 30% Decline in cross-party friendships over 20 years
- 400% Increase in workplace "cancel culture" incidents since 2015
The causes are structural:
| System | What It Optimizes For | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Social Media | Engagement | Outrage performs best; nuance dies |
| News | Attention | Certainty captures clicks; "it depends" doesn't |
| Universities | Avoiding controversy | Dangerous ideas aren't engaged; they're avoided |
| Workplaces | Consensus | Dissent becomes career risk |
The result: a population that can't disagree without demonizing. Conversations end with blocked accounts, not changed minds.
What Debate Taught Me
I discovered competitive debate at Northwestern. It changed how I think—not because I learned to win arguments, but because I learned to lose them.
The crucial feature of debate: You're assigned positions randomly. One round you argue for universal healthcare; the next, against it. This destroys the illusion that your positions are obviously correct. You learn that smart people can reach opposite conclusions from the same evidence.
After college, I coached at Chicago Debates on the South Side. I watched kids who'd never been told their voice mattered stand up and argue. I watched them discover they could change minds—including their own.
But here's the problem: after high school or college, debate infrastructure disappears. Adults have nowhere to practice this skill. They're on their own, in a world that punishes nuance.
The Infrastructure Gap
Think about other skills society values:
| Skill | Infrastructure | Monthly Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Fitness | Gyms, trainers, classes, apps, YouTube | $30-200 |
| Basketball | Courts, leagues, pickup games | $0-50 |
| Music | Studios, jam sessions, open mics | $20-100 |
| Public speaking | Toastmasters | $50 |
| Critical thinking & argumentation | ??? | ??? |
Nothing. If you want to get better at thinking—at arguing, at changing minds, at being changed—there's no place to go.
"What about political organizations? Philosophy clubs? Online forums?"
Political organizations reinforce beliefs rather than challenge them—that's their purpose. Philosophy clubs discuss; they don't compete. Online forums optimize for heat, not light. None of these provide the structured, competitive environment that accelerates skill development.
SuperDebate is the infrastructure that's missing. A gym for your mind.
How It Actually Works
Local Clubs
We're building debate clubs in cities worldwide. Current chapters:
| City | Frequency | Typical Attendance |
|---|---|---|
| New York City | Weekly, Thursdays | 24-40 |
| San Francisco | Biweekly, Tuesdays | 16-28 |
| Chicago | Weekly, Wednesdays | 20-32 |
| Austin | Monthly, first Saturdays | 12-20 |
| London | Launching Q1 2026 | TBD |
| Berlin | Launching Q1 2026 | TBD |
Each club runs 2-4 debates per session. Format varies by experience level.
The Debate Format
Our standard format for club nights:
Topic Announcement
Both debaters learn the resolution and their assigned side.
Prep Time (10 min)
Research, outline, strategize. Internet access allowed.
Steel-Man Requirement (2 min each)
This is our secret weapon. Each debater must present the strongest version of their opponent's case. If you can't pass this test, you don't understand the issue well enough to debate it.
Opening Arguments (5 min each)
Build your case. Must present constructive arguments.
Cross-Examination (4 min)
Direct questioning. Test your opponent's reasoning in real time.
Closing Statements (2 min each)
Summary and final appeal to judges.
Peer Feedback (5 min)
Structured feedback from observers. What worked? What didn't?
Total time: ~35 minutes per debate. Three debates per 2-hour session.
The Steel-Man Requirement
Before you can argue your position, you must articulate your opponent's position well enough that they'd say, "Yes, that's exactly what I believe—you've actually stated it better than I could."
This forces genuine understanding. You can't straw-man. You can't caricature. You have to actually engage with the strongest version of the opposing view.
When judges score debates, the steel-man presentation counts. Win your main argument but fail the steel-man, and you can lose the round. This single rule changes everything about how people prepare and argue.
Why This Model Works
Assigned Positions Destroy Tribalism
When you might argue either side, you can't demonize either side. Regular debaters develop the ability to see merit in positions they personally reject. This is rare and valuable.
Competition Accelerates Learning
You get better faster when stakes exist. Casual discussion doesn't create the pressure that reveals your weaknesses. Competition does.
This is why sports work. Nobody becomes an elite basketball player through casual pickup games alone. You need competition—the pressure of being watched, judged, and potentially losing. The same is true for intellectual skills.
Community Creates Accountability
You can't be anonymous. Your arguments are attached to your face. You'll see these people next week. This creates incentives for good faith that online discourse lacks.
Structure Enables Depth
Time limits force concision. Turn-taking ensures both sides are heard. Rules prevent interruption and bad faith. Without structure, debates devolve into power contests. With it, ideas can actually be evaluated.
Who This Is For
| Type | Profile | What They Get |
|---|---|---|
| Competitive Refugees | Former high school or college debaters who miss it | A place to use skills that would otherwise atrophy |
| Professional Upgraders | Lawyers, consultants, executives needing persuasion skills | Structured practice; often sent by employers |
| Curious Generalists | Podcast listeners, readers, intellectually curious types | Sharpen thinking against others, not alone |
Common thread: they all want to sharpen their thinking against others, not just consume content alone.
Getting Started
Join an Existing Club
Find your city at superdebate.org/clubs. First session is free. No experience required—we pair newcomers with experienced members.
Start a New Club
If your city isn't listed, you can launch one. We provide:
- Format documentation and training
- Topic library (200+ vetted resolutions)
- Platform access for scheduling and matching
- Community of other chapter leaders
- Marketing templates and guidance
Minimum viable club: 8 committed members, a recurring venue, a chapter leader.
Compete
For those who want more: local tournaments quarterly, regional championships annually, Infinita World Championship for the serious.
The Vision
In ten years, I want SuperDebate clubs in every major city. I want "going to debate" to be as normal as "going to the gym."
The Greeks had the agora. The Romans had the forum. These weren't just places—they were practices. Citizens gathered not to agree, but to disagree well. Public discourse was exercise, not entertainment.
We lost that. The Enlightenment coffee houses. The Victorian debating societies. The mid-century public intellectuals. Each generation had institutions for structured disagreement. Ours doesn't.
SuperDebate is my attempt to build it back.
The world doesn't need more people who are good at winning arguments. It needs more people who are good at having them.
- Find your city: superdebate.org/clubs
- First session is free: No experience required
- Can't find your city? Start a chapter—we'll help