u/paijim

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:

1. No cursing
2. No personal attacks
3. Stay on topic

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:

1. No cursing
2. No personal attacks
3. Stay on topic

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 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.

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.