Beyond For & Against

“Between two evils, choose neither.

Between two goods, choose both.”

– Tryon Edwards (A Dictionary of Thoughts, 1891)

There are times when constraints force us to pick between two undesirable outcomes. In those moments, we can follow the ancient wisdom of Aristotle:

For the lesser evil can be seen in comparison with the greater evil as a good, since this lesser evil is preferable to the greater one, and whatever is preferable is good.” – Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

Yet all too often, this framing reflects not necessity, but a lack of imagination. It may even be a deliberate simplification, after all, anyone pushing the “lesser evil” wouldn’t want anyone to be aware of any other option but the greater evil.

In politics, we’re frequently trapped in such false choices. As memorably satirized in The Simpsons, when aliens impersonate the two main presidential candidates:

Alien: “It’s true. We are aliens, but what are you going to do about it? It’s a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us.”

Citizen: “Well, I believe I’ll vote for a third-party candidate.”
Alien: “Go ahead. Throw your vote away.”

It’s absurd comedy, but it exposes a serious dynamic rooted in game theory and Duverger’s law. In ‘first past the post’ systems, supporting a third option could split votes away from the ‘lesser evil’ (even if that is still an extraterrestrial invader intent on enslaving the human race). Instead of recognising the possibility of other options Homer finishes the episode absolving himself saying “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos”.

Traditional debates suffer the same flaw. They force every question into a binary motion: for or against, yes or no. This mirrors the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy, limiting thought, creativity, and relevance to real-world decisions.

Others have analysed this problem in more depth and detail than I can here. I do not want to add another voice to the commentary. As a tech entrepreneur, I want to build the solution.

That solution is HealthyDebate.org.

Beyond Binary: The Power of Open Questions

HealthyDebate introduces a simple yet profound innovation: Open questions.

Most debates are limited to “Should we do X?” (a yes/no binary question). HealthyDebate.org also will have the architecture for the broader question to be asked: i.e. “What should we do?” ‘X’ may well be just one of a dozen solutions proposed.

Consider the difference:

• Binary: “Should we have Chinese food tonight?” Forces a yes/no argument.
• Open: “What should we have for dinner tonight?” Branches naturally: Chinese, Italian, Indian, home-cooked, salad, or something new.
  • Nested debates evaluate each on merits (taste, health, cost, time).
  • Once all the options are known, once the merits of each have been debated, the next debates are clear.
  • Like was described in No.05 Common Ground. A vitriolic argument between two friends over which cuisine they should eat seems silly if there is a third option that both enjoy.

Scale it up:

Binary: “Should we go to war?” Polarizes society into hawks vs. doves.

Open: “How best to ensure regional security?” Options emerge: military action, economic sanctions, diplomatic negotiations, humanitarian support, or creative hybrids. Each gets rigorous pro/con scrutiny.

The same applies to energy policy (“Ban fossil fuels?” vs. “What is the optimal energy mix for the coming decades?”), climate action, healthcare reform, or urban planning.

These open questions then create a superstructure for each option to be critically assessed in branching for/against debates.

Alternative solutions are often buried in traditional media and debate formats. The nuance and complexity they introduce don’t fit simple narrative soundbites, headlines, or algorithms optimized for outrage.

Users would propose options freely (crowdsourced, no platform gatekeeping). On HealthyDebate, every viable option gets equal starting real estate. The community proposes them; merit determines visibility.

Options can be sorted in multiple transparent ways:

• Engagement levels
• Community ratings (Elo-style or tournament brackets)
• Depth of evidence and refinement

Open questions expand the solution space, but structured evaluation compresses it again—based on merit, not noise

As is explored in Article No.02, a revolutionary rating system designed to both reward merit and give users agency would be applied to the various solutions proposed. Ridiculous suggestions sink naturally; the best ones rise. No central authority picks winners, impartiality preserved.

Like Media Health Check, these open questions become gateways to a rich, interconnected web of debates. Users see the full spectrum, make informed choices, and contribute to collective wisdom.

We don’t have to accept forced choices that limit imagination and entrench division. Better decisions, from dinner to diplomatic tables, are possible when we expand the scope of solutions.

As Tryon Edwards recommended, we may well be able to avoid choosing either evil (whether it be lesser or greater). We may be able to choose multiple good options instead.

This mission is bigger than any one person.

If you believe in it, help bring HealthyDebate to life: join the conversation, contribute your insight, donate, or spread the word.

Together we can move beyond false dichotomies and toward the best possible solutions.

Support HealthyDebate.org