[laughinghan]

I'm confused. In both Debubble and my vaguely sketched out proposal, you can't be forced into a debate with someone you have no interest talking to. You have to voluntarily start a conversation with them.

Surely there is at least someone in the world who, unlike your 3 examples of conspiracy theorists, you would consider a reasonable person, but who also disagrees with you about something important?

r/changemyview has the same problem I criticized Debubble for, which is not addressing the deeper problems that cause debates to be toxic. r/changemyview's only rules are basic no-trolling civility rules, whereas my proposed rules are MUCH stricter: during phase 1, you're literally not allowed to argue. Making arguments is banned, you're only allowed to ask and answer clarifying questions during phase 1.

In a discussion with someone who is reasonable but disagrees with you about something important, can you imagine a framework like that being helpful? How would you improve them?

(I also believe that, even if you couldn't possibly learn anything about 5G or coronavirus from someone who believes 5G causes coronavirus, you may be able to learn what causes someone to start believing such nonsense, and how we as a society can mitigate this kind of misinformation.)