Debate Meeting
Positions exist. Criteria don't. Fix that before anyone commits.
The Realist chairs. Primary boxes: Reality + Questions from the six-box canvas. Energy is convergent — stress-test ideas against evidence, narrow the field, define what "good" means.
A debate produces fewer options, not more. It takes raw material from Discovery or Collision and forges decision criteria. The output feeds a Decision meeting.
Protocol
| Stage | Protocol | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Before | Competing positions documented. Evidence assigned. Success criteria TBD. | Clear disagreement |
| During | Each position states falsifiable claims. Cross-examine. Chair keeps score against criteria. | Ranked options + criteria |
| After | Written summary: what was ruled out, what survived, what still unknown. | Input for Decision |
Running It
- Chair asks: "What would prove this wrong?" and "What are we optimizing for?"
- No new options after the first third — only refinement and kill
- Decisions are explicitly deferred — this meeting narrows; it does not commit
- 4-8 people. Include skeptics, not just advocates
Shadow Risk
Performative conflict. Debate as sport. The room argues for status instead of clarity. Winners are loud; truth is optional.
Shadow check: Did we end with sharper criteria and fewer viable options — or with the same list and bruised egos?
Wrong Meeting?
| Signal | Redirect to |
|---|---|
| Room lacks shared facts | Discovery — align on reality first |
| Room needs raw ideas, not evaluation | Collision — diverge before narrowing |
| Criteria are clear, authority present | Decision — commit |
| Commitments already made, need review | Accountability — compare to outcome |
Context
- Realist Archetype — The chair's operating mode
- Make Meetings Matter — The six-box canvas
- Meetings — Universal protocol
- Decision Making — What comes after criteria exist
Questions
What separates a debate that narrowed the field from one that only rehearsed positions?
- When should the chair cut off new options — and how do you know the room hit that point?
- How do you keep skeptics engaged without letting cynicism substitute for evidence?
- If the summary doesn't change what a Decision meeting would do, was the debate necessary?