Scott argues that projects attempting to "solve debate" through argument mapping or similar technologies are fundamentally doomed because real arguments don't work like logical syllogisms, people don't actually want structured debates, and there's no evidence this approach has ever worked.

Scott critiques the phrase 'the purpose of a system is what it does' by showing how it confuses outcomes with intentions and leads to absurd or paranoid conclusions.

Scott Alexander dissects and criticizes a common argument against AI safety that compares it to past unfulfilled disaster predictions, finding it logically flawed and difficult to steelman.

Scott Alexander explores five unspoken assumptions in discussions that can lead to misunderstandings and logical fallacies when not clarified.

The author humorously responds to a common argument against evidence-based medicine, suggesting a parachute experiment with a twist.

A humorous fictional tale about a logician and a God-Emperor illustrates the importance of precise logical language through two scenarios involving logical operators.

Scott Alexander outlines and criticizes ten fallacious argument styles that misrepresent an opponent's beliefs, demonstrating how they can be used to unfairly attack any position.

Scott Alexander explores the 'Proving Too Much' fallacy as an efficient tactic to quickly dismantle complex arguments, particularly those using Dark Arts techniques.