Show HN: I built a platform where audiences fund debates between public thinkers
Mood
excited
Sentiment
positive
Category
tech
Key topics
debate platform
public discourse
health/wellness
tech
With Logosive, you propose a debate topic and debaters. We then handle outreach, ticket sales, and logistics. After the debate, ticket revenue is split between everyone involved, including the person that proposed the debate, the debaters, and the host.
Logosive is built with Django, htmx, and Alpine.js. Claude generates the debate launch pages, including suggesting debaters or debate topics, all from a single prompt (but the debates happen between real debaters).
I’m now looking for help launching new debates, so if you have any topics or people you really want to see debate, please submit them at https://logosive.com.
Thanks!
The author built Logosive, a platform where users can propose and fund debates between public thinkers, and is seeking help launching new debates.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
3h
Peak period
35
Day 1
Avg / period
19
Based on 38 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
11/12/2025, 8:35:22 PM
6d ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
11/12/2025, 11:12:36 PM
3h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
35 comments in Day 1
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
11/14/2025, 1:50:27 AM
5d ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Selling (even pre-selling) tickets to debates between people who haven't agreed to participate in your debate is insanely misleading marketing.
I think I get the idea of a kind of bounty on debate participation, but the logistics need more work.
Less charitably, however, as soon as Logosive takes off a bit, the existing debating venues (news channels, big podcasts, etc.) can just look at what debate ideas are popular and make them happen, with the promise of a bigger paycheck and a bigger audience.
Can't really find a moat for Logosive here.
You describe an interesting problem with the moat. I'm hoping we can be the choice venue for debates by providing the best debate creation and discovery experience and by also providing larger paychecks to debaters than news channels and podcasts could ever hope to provide to debaters, hosts, and debate promoters, through Logosive's funding mechanism and a large revenue share for all parties involved in the debate.
When I initially read your comment, I agreed with it. But, on second thought, if the site is presented as a sort of Kickstarter for debates where people are funding something they hope will happen, I think it might work. It is important that this is clearly communicated though.
This won’t work out for you because you’ve designed it to be as close to a valueless middleman as possible. I don’t blame you as it’s a nice business model…when it works.
You sit back and do nothing while your community does all the work that a normal media company would do: coming up with content ideas, executive producing, and even doing the technical work of delivering the content if I’m reading your ToS right.
You used tech to solve a problem that isn’t tech related at all. You started with a decent vision statement for what you want the world to have more of, but you chose a hammer when your problem is a screw.
I think you’re more likely to realize this end goal by making a YouTube channel or whatever other social media profiles, do the hard work of consistently putting out debate content, and grow that audience organically to the point where you can actually invite well-known experts to make content with you.
Thanks for catching the copy and messaging edits. The homepage debate is a sample debate that directs to the list of proposed debates. I’ll change that sample debate so it’s less confusing.
Also good point about “create with AI”.
Then again I may be biased because I'm a terrible debater. On the other hand, my mom used to show off her debate medals from high school.
For example, 99% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and human-caused, but - oh! - we need to be fair and balanced so we'll give time to the other side that has tons of untested and unproven crackpot theories about maybe that's just what climates do and we just shouldn't bother trying to do better.
Likewise with 'vaccines cause autism'. There's no scientific evidence whatsoever to show any link whatsoever, but we need to be balanced so we have to give time to both sides.
The headline example on their site is 'are seed oils healthy?' Assuming an agreed-upon definition of 'healthy', this shouldn't be a debate. Are they good for you in moderation or not? Let's look at the science. Oh, they're fine? Great, debate over.
They also have "AGI in 5 years?" What's to debate there? Sure, it's possible, who knows? What's the point in debating whether or not something might happen?
If it were 'will AGI be beneficial for humanity?' then okay, that could be a debate, but none of these topics I'm seeing are good fodder for debate; just arguments or baseless assertions.
The outcome is often... less than desirable.
I’ve also enjoyed the debate about debate that this discussion has generated, so thank you for that.
The problem is that in any contentious topic where the science isn't definitive, each side will latch onto whatever ambiguous studies that favors their position. For seed oils it's various studies showing "inflammation", and ad-hominem on how opposing studies are funded by big oil (or whatever). Or think about how during the pandemic, there was conflicting evidence on whether masks worked, or whether ivermectin cured covid. We now have a much better understanding, but at the start of the pandemic there was weak evidence both ways.
One debate format I'd like to see on Logosive is asynchronous debate, similar to the Federalist Papers, where the debaters submit their positions and rebuttals to each other as written statements, over the course of weeks. I think this format could align with more of a truth-seeking type of debate, and Logosive can already support this format.
Debates are pure entertainment, often misunderstood as fact, and often purely to manipulate.
That said, the level of respect and orderliness of the debates below is something I'd like to see more of.
* Russell v. Copleston on God https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMsbD1L5IlQ
* Buckley v. Baldwin on if the american dream is at the expense of the american negro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin%E2%80%93Buckley_debate
The last debate that changed my mind on anything was about 20 years ago. It was a structured debate regarding marriage equality. The negative team, included a wildcard, a poly bisexual woman, whose relationship would still be ignored by the government after the change. She argued, very successfully in my opinion, that moving the bar one step made no sense, and the government simply shouldnt have a favoured relationship status at all.
Since then I cant think of any. However, I also cant think of another proper structured debate I have seen.
People love winners, not ideas. It's just more us-vs-them. Especially because the US population only ever sees the word "debate" when it comes to a political debate on a stage, and those are not debates.
Again, I love this idea in theory but I fear it's time has come and gone already.
I’ve also seen a surge of interest in debate outside just political debate, especially on platforms like Jubilee, podcasts, and X spaces.
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.