The Web3 Debate

On Friday, everybody’s favorite Professor sent out a piece titled, simply, Web3.

I didn’t receive it. I don’t subscribe. But my dad forwarded it to me, with an “uh oh…”

Uh oh is right. I should have been nervous about opening it. I’m very long crypto. But I wasn’t even a little bit nervous, because I had no doubt what side the Prof would be on and what kind of piece he was going to write. And that’s exactly the piece he wrote.

Now I don’t want this to be a “dunk on the Prof because he’s always wrong” piece. My friend and Party Round CEO Jordi Hays proclaimed that “shitting on Galloway is played out,” and I tend to agree. I didn’t even want to respond.

But then I noticed that he misquoted me and misrepresented things I was involved in. Then I looked a little deeper and found errors and misdirections galore.

The Professor’s piece was a lazy regurgitation of other peoples’ arguments with some key inaccuracies, intentional or accidental. Hundreds of thousands of people read, listen to, and even pay to learn from him, and normally it’s not my problem… but if he’s going to accidentally pull me into this debate anyway, let’s debate.

Welcome to Debate Club

At the risk of making myself seem unimaginably cool: I debated competitively in high school and college, and actually just started a Debate Club in NYC when COVID hit.

In Parliamentary debate, the kind we did at Debate Club, there are two teams – the Proposition and the Opposition – who debate a resolution. The resolution might be something like “General AI should have fundamental rights.” The Proposition defends the resolution and the Opposition tries to poke holes in it.

The two sides go back and forth making arguments, concluding in a rebuttal from each team summarizing the debate, reiterating their points, and trying to make clear why their side won. If you want to read the rules, I wrote up a stripped down version for Debate Club.

Συνέχεια εδώ


Σχετικά Άρθρα