Idk if this is the appropriate sub to ask this in but was just kinda curious if anyone else kinda toggles between zyns and vapes through out the day? I thought the zyns would help me vape less and they did BUT i still feel like i just kinda do both now albeit i do "vape less" but obviously that doesnt mean very much if im just subbing it for a pouch
I am not sure if this post belongs here but i just was curious for others also trying to quit what dollar value would you put on it. I ask because my zyn addiction is turning out to be more expensive than my vape addiction. Currently spending about $210 a month, 7 dollars a day. this is on top of the negative side effects of course
this has just been my experience with both cats i’ve had as my own, i’ve baby sat for, and friends. it just seems like they are quicker to vibe with dudes. i tried asking all the AIs if there’s any external evidence to corroborate this but there doesn’t seem to be.
what do yall think
I built an app for people to swipe on topics, match with someone who disagrees, and get scored on civility.
The idea was that if you were constantly an asshole, your civility score would follow you.
But I added a side feature called toxic mode where there was no civility score and people could just argue.
Every user went straight to toxic mode.
That taught me two things.
First, users do not always care about the product you think you built. They care about the part that creates the strongest reaction.
Second, my funnel was way too long for something that needed two people online at the same time. Ad to site to app store to install to onboarding to swiping to matching to finally chatting was just way too much friction.
So I was like ok lets just see if the friction is the issue here
I made a lightweight browser version focused on the behavior people were already choosing.
No install. No app store. Just pick a topic and jump in.
https://thinklavender.com/ragebait
The bigger lesson for me was to watch what users actually do, especially when it is not what you wanted them to do.
Curious if other founders here have had users prefer the “wrong” feature and whether you followed it or kept pushing your original vision.
So I’m obsessed with debate, I’ll be honest, and I’ve noticed, as I’m sure we all have, that discourse in recent years has gotten really toxic.
It’s either a dogpile, throwing insults, being condescending, I don’t need to rehash what I imagine we all already know.
I built an app where people could swipe on topics, get matched with someone who disagrees, and get a score on their civility. The idea was that if you’re always an asshole, your shitty civility score would follow you and no one would want to talk to you.
I added a feature in passing called toxic mode that did not judge your civility. Spew your venom, no holds barred.
That was the idea.
Every time I got an install on the app, every single user immediately jumped into toxic mode. Out of 100+ downloads, not a single person wanted to have a civil discussion. They wanted the messy version. The heated version. The version that felt more like a chaotic internet argument than a polite debate club.
So I stopped fighting it and built a lightweight browser version where you can just pick a topic and jump in:
https://thinklavender.com/ragebait
The goal is still to get people talking to people they disagree with. Maybe the first step is not making everyone perfectly civil. Maybe it is just getting them in the same room.
And if that room has to be a little toxic to get people through the door, so be it.
Would love feedback on the idea and whether this feels like something people would actually try.
I’ve been working on something called CounterSwipe.
The premise is simple: everyone says they want to hear different opinions, but most people never actually sit across from someone who disagrees and defend what they believe.
CounterSwipe turns that into a game.
You swipe on a prompt, pick a side, then match with someone who picked the opposite side. From there, you debate one-on-one and get scored on things like logic, persuasion, and civility.
There would be two modes: unmoderated for people who want more chaos, and AI-moderated for people who want a cleaner debate.
In moderated mode, every message gets checked against three basic rules:
Given where LLMs are now, that is a pretty straightforward moderation task. I’ve also added live fact-checking, which is expensive on my end, but it does work.
The idea is that if you constantly break the rules, your score takes a hit and that follows your profile. So if you’re consistently being an asshole, people will know before they choose to debate you.
The prompts can be serious or fun: politics, culture, moral dilemmas, relationships, free speech, sports, anime, health, and random hot takes people already argue about anyway.
The part I’m testing is whether people actually want disagreement when it is direct, structured, and a little competitive.
A few questions I’m thinking through:
Would people debate someone who disagrees if it felt like a game?
Would scoring make people try harder, or would it make the conversation feel too artificial?
Should the app lean into serious issues, fun chaos, or both?
Would people rather debate friends, strangers, or AI first?
The bigger idea is to make challenging your own opinions feel more fun than just collecting agreement.
For context, this is the project:
https://thinklavender.com/counterswipe
Would love honest feedback on the concept, landing page, or what would make this actually fun to use.
Here’s the cleaner version with that sentiment added organically:
I’ve been working on something called CounterSwipe.
The premise is simple: everyone says they want to hear different opinions, but most people never actually sit across from someone who disagrees and defend what they believe.
CounterSwipe turns that into a game.
You swipe on a prompt, pick a side, then match with someone who picked the opposite side. From there, you debate one-on-one and get scored on things like logic, persuasion, and civility.
There would be two modes: unmoderated for people who want more chaos, and AI-moderated for people who want a cleaner debate.
In moderated mode, every message gets checked against three basic rules:
Given where LLMs are now, that is a pretty straightforward moderation task. I’ve also added live fact-checking, which is expensive on my end, but it does work.
The idea is that if you constantly break the rules, your score takes a hit and that follows your profile. So if you’re consistently being an asshole, people will know before they choose to debate you.
The prompts can be serious or fun: politics, culture, moral dilemmas, relationships, free speech, sports, anime, health, and random hot takes people already argue about anyway.
The part I’m testing is whether people actually want disagreement when it is direct, structured, and a little competitive.
A few questions I’m thinking through:
Would people debate someone who disagrees if it felt like a game?
Would scoring make people try harder, or would it make the conversation feel too artificial?
Should the app lean into serious issues, fun chaos, or both?
Would people rather debate friends, strangers, or AI first?
The bigger idea is to make challenging your own opinions feel more fun than just collecting agreement.
For context, this is the project:
https://thinklavender.com/counterswipe
Would love honest feedback on the concept, landing page, or what would make this actually fun to use.
Here’s the cleaner version with that sentiment added organically:
I’ve been working on something called CounterSwipe.
The premise is simple: everyone says they want to hear different opinions, but most people never actually sit across from someone who disagrees and defend what they believe.
CounterSwipe turns that into a game.
You swipe on a prompt, pick a side, then match with someone who picked the opposite side. From there, you debate one-on-one and get scored on things like logic, persuasion, and civility.
There would be two modes: unmoderated for people who want more chaos, and AI-moderated for people who want a cleaner debate.
In moderated mode, every message gets checked against three basic rules:
Given where LLMs are now, that is a pretty straightforward moderation task. I’ve also added live fact-checking, which is expensive on my end, but it does work.
The idea is that if you constantly break the rules, your score takes a hit and that follows your profile. So if you’re consistently being an asshole, people will know before they choose to debate you.
The prompts can be serious or fun: politics, culture, moral dilemmas, relationships, free speech, sports, anime, health, and random hot takes people already argue about anyway.
The part I’m testing is whether people actually want disagreement when it is direct, structured, and a little competitive.
A few questions I’m thinking through:
Would people debate someone who disagrees if it felt like a game?
Would scoring make people try harder, or would it make the conversation feel too artificial?
Should the app lean into serious issues, fun chaos, or both?
Would people rather debate friends, strangers, or AI first?
The bigger idea is to make challenging your own opinions feel more fun than just collecting agreement.
For context, this is the project:
https://thinklavender.com/counterswipe
Would love honest feedback on the concept, landing page, or what would make this actually fun to use.
I’ve been working on something called CounterSwipe.
The premise is simple: everyone says they want to hear different opinions, but most people never actually sit across from someone who disagrees and defend what they believe.
CounterSwipe turns that into a game.
You swipe on a prompt, pick a side, then match with someone who picked the opposite side. From there, you debate one-on-one and get scored on things like logic, persuasion, and civility.
No hiding behind vague takes. No just agreeing with the crowd. You either defend your opinion or realize it is weaker than you thought.
The prompts can be serious or fun: politics, culture, moral dilemmas, relationships, free speech, sports, anime, health, and random hot takes people already argue about anyway.
The part I’m testing is whether people actually want disagreement when it is direct, structured, and a little competitive.
A few questions I’m thinking through:
Would people debate someone who disagrees if it felt like a game?
Would scoring make people try harder, or would it make the conversation feel too artificial?
Should the app lean into serious issues, fun chaos, or both?
Would people rather debate friends, strangers, or AI first?
The bigger idea is to make challenging your own opinions feel more fun than just collecting agreement.
For context, this is the project:
https://thinklavender.com/counterswipe
Would love honest feedback on the concept, landing page, or what would make this actually fun to use.
I’ve been working on something called CounterSwipe.
The premise is simple: everyone says they want to hear different opinions, but most people never actually sit across from someone who disagrees and defend what they believe.
CounterSwipe turns that into a game.
You swipe on a prompt, pick a side, then match with someone who picked the opposite side. From there, you debate one-on-one and get scored on things like logic, persuasion, and civility.
No hiding behind vague takes. No just agreeing with the crowd. You either defend your opinion or realize it is weaker than you thought.
The prompts can be serious or fun: politics, culture, moral dilemmas, relationships, free speech, sports, anime, health, and random hot takes people already argue about anyway.
The part I’m testing is whether people actually want disagreement when it is direct, structured, and a little competitive.
A few questions I’m thinking through:
Would people debate someone who disagrees if it felt like a game?
Would scoring make people try harder, or would it make the conversation feel too artificial?
Should the app lean into serious issues, fun chaos, or both?
Would people rather debate friends, strangers, or AI first?
The bigger idea is to make challenging your own opinions feel more fun than just collecting agreement.
For context, this is the project:
https://thinklavender.com/counterswipe
Would love honest feedback on the concept, landing page, or what would make this actually fun to use.
I’ve been working on something called CounterSwipe.
The premise is simple: everyone says they want to hear different opinions, but most people never actually sit across from someone who disagrees and defend what they believe.
CounterSwipe turns that into a game.
You swipe on a prompt, pick a side, then match with someone who picked the opposite side. From there, you debate one-on-one and get scored on things like logic, persuasion, and civility.
No hiding behind vague takes. No just agreeing with the crowd. You either defend your opinion or realize it is weaker than you thought.
The prompts can be serious or fun: politics, culture, moral dilemmas, relationships, free speech, sports, anime, health, and random hot takes people already argue about anyway.
The part I’m testing is whether people actually want disagreement when it is direct, structured, and a little competitive.
A few questions I’m thinking through:
Would people debate someone who disagrees if it felt like a game?
Would scoring make people try harder, or would it make the conversation feel too artificial?
Should the app lean into serious issues, fun chaos, or both?
Would people rather debate friends, strangers, or AI first?
The bigger idea is to make challenging your own opinions feel more fun than just collecting agreement.
For context, this is the project:
https://thinklavender.com/counterswipe
Would love honest feedback on the concept, landing page, or what would make this actually fun to use.
I’ve been working on something called CounterSwipe.
The premise is simple: everyone says they want to hear different opinions, but most people never actually sit across from someone who disagrees and defend what they believe.
CounterSwipe turns that into a game.
You swipe on a prompt, pick a side, then match with someone who picked the opposite side. From there, you debate one-on-one and get scored on things like logic, persuasion, and civility.
No hiding behind vague takes. No just agreeing with the crowd. You either defend your opinion or realize it is weaker than you thought.
The prompts can be serious or fun: politics, culture, moral dilemmas, relationships, free speech, sports, anime, health, and random hot takes people already argue about anyway.
The part I’m testing is whether people actually want disagreement when it is direct, structured, and a little competitive.
A few questions I’m thinking through:
Would people debate someone who disagrees if it felt like a game?
Would scoring make people try harder, or would it make the conversation feel too artificial?
Should the app lean into serious issues, fun chaos, or both?
Would people rather debate friends, strangers, or AI first?
The bigger idea is to make challenging your own opinions feel more fun than just collecting agreement.
For context, this is the project:
https://thinklavender.com/counterswipe
Would love honest feedback on the concept, landing page, or what would make this actually fun to use.
I’ve been working on something called CounterSwipe.
The premise is simple: everyone says they want to hear different opinions, but most people never actually sit across from someone who disagrees and defend what they believe.
CounterSwipe turns that into a game.
You swipe on a prompt, pick a side, then match with someone who picked the opposite side. From there, you debate one-on-one and get scored on things like logic, persuasion, and civility.
No hiding behind vague takes. No just agreeing with the crowd. You either defend your opinion or realize it is weaker than you thought.
The prompts can be serious or fun: politics, culture, moral dilemmas, relationships, free speech, sports, anime, health, and random hot takes people already argue about anyway.
The part I’m testing is whether people actually want disagreement when it is direct, structured, and a little competitive.
A few questions I’m thinking through:
Would people debate someone who disagrees if it felt like a game?
Would scoring make people try harder, or would it make the conversation feel too artificial?
Should the app lean into serious issues, fun chaos, or both?
Would people rather debate friends, strangers, or AI first?
The bigger idea is to make challenging your own opinions feel more fun than just collecting agreement.
For context, this is the project:
https://thinklavender.com/counterswipe
Would love honest feedback on the concept, landing page, or what would make this actually fun to use.
I’ve been working on an idea called CounterSwipe and wanted to get honest opinions from FSU students.
The concept is basically this:
Instead of campus hot takes turning into giant comment threads, you pick a side on a prompt and get matched with one person who picked the opposite side. Then you debate one-on-one and get scored on things like logic, persuasion, and civility.
The prompts could be serious or dumb/fun. Stuff like campus issues, politics, relationships, free speech, moral dilemmas, sports, anime, culture, or random group chat arguments.
I’m interested in the campus angle because college is one of the few places where people are constantly around different opinions, but a lot of those conversations either stay private or turn into people talking past each other online.
My question is: would FSU students actually use something like CounterSwipe, or would campus debate apps just turn into chaos?
Also curious what kinds of prompts would actually get people here to participate.
Hi. I’m the founder building CounterSwipe.
The basic idea came from a frustration I have with Reddit and most discussion platforms.
A lot of the time, the problem is not that people disagree. Disagreement is good. The problem is the format.
If you post something outside of the dominant view in a subreddit, you are not really entering a conversation. You are often getting hit by 20, 30, or 40 people making some version of the same point at once.
At that point, it stops feeling like dialogue and starts feeling like ideological dogpiling. Even a moderate opinion can get flattened into “you must be on the extreme other side” because the crowd has already decided what box you belong in.
CounterSwipe is my attempt at a different format.
You swipe on a prompt card, pick a side, then get matched with one person who picked the opposite side.
Not a comment section.
Not a pile-on.
Not a popularity contest.
Just a one-on-one conversation where both people actually have room to explain themselves.
A few things we are building around:
The goal is not to create another echo chamber. It is to make disagreement feel more balanced, more direct, and more human.
I’d really appreciate feedback from people who are also frustrated with the way Reddit-style discussions usually go.
Would you use something like this? What would make one-on-one debate actually work?
https://thinklavender.com/counterswipe
Thanks for reading.
I have seen so many times the phrase "it is not my job to educate you" which fair enough it probably isn't a persons job to do so BUT there is still value in having conversations with people you feel arent educated on the matter because discourse is the best way to inform and change opinions. I think is that often times people will have a mountain of empirical evidence for both of their sides and a big point of frustration is that this evidence while valid is not moving the needle of persuasion. BUT
YOU CAN NOT LOGIC SOMEONE OUT OF A POSITION THAT THEY DID NOT LOGIC THEMSELVES INTO
AND
PEOPLE DONT CHANGE THIER MINDS IN THE MOMENT
and does that mean that person person should not be conversed with / they are stupid (far from it) OR do we as a society need to have more patience with one and other ? We can't always assume those who disagree with us are amoral or dumb, I think thats intelecutally lazy
Opinions that differ from mainstream left views are almost immediately categorized as far our alt right. So often I will see individuals post a moderate or somewhat right leaning view and are immediately dogpiled on by 40 redditors which is not inherently the issue, the issue is that almost everyone shares the same opinion making it impossible to have a proper discussion because you need to engage with dozens of people at once. The platform has no balance, its an army of like minded people ready to get at your throat for defying the status quo of the forum.