In recent years, I’ve noticed a troubling pattern in professional discussions, especially on platforms like LinkedIn and YouTube. People make bold claims—sometimes misleading ones—about important technical topics. Yet when challenged, they often avoid real engagement.
This experience led me to the idea of creating virtual debates: structured discussions where different viewpoints can be presented clearly, even when the original posters are unwilling to participate.
The Catalyst: A Debate About Excel and Budgeting
One particular case triggered my decision.
Colin Wall, a self-described Anaplan salesman, posted on LinkedIn that bottom-up budgeting cannot be done in spreadsheets—only top-down budgeting, which he also claimed is ineffective.
While I agreed with his criticism of top-down budgeting, his assertion about bottom-up budgeting in spreadsheets—specifically Excel—was simply wrong. It’s not a matter of opinion: it’s a matter of technical fact.
The reality is that bottom-up budgeting can absolutely be done in Excel. I’ve done it. I’ve built real-world solutions for clients based on it.
When I engaged with Colin Wall on LinkedIn, the discussion stretched out over three days. We reached a point where the areas of disagreement were at least clear—but unfortunately, all that valuable back-and-forth became buried in the LinkedIn thread.
No lasting record. No clear resolution.
No benefit for others who might face the same misconceptions.
To make matters worse, after that conversation, I spent several weeks creating a globally demonstrable model of bottom-up budgeting—based on real client solutions.
Despite presenting clear evidence, Colin Wall refused to engage further. In fact, when I searched for the original thread recently (a tedious process, because LinkedIn offers no direct retrieval unless you saved the URL), I discovered he had continued posting dozens of new posts repeating the same misleading claim—even after being proven wrong.
Why This Matters
This is not just about one argument or one individual.
False statements like “Excel cannot do bottom-up budgeting” mislead people. They can result in poor corporate decisions on spending, software adoption, and systems implementation.
Worse, the people making these flawed claims often go silent when challenged. They refuse to revise their statements or even engage meaningfully.
This isn’t thought leadership.
True thought leadership requires a willingness to have your ideas tested—and, when necessary, corrected.
Why Virtual Debates?
Initially, I considered organizing live online debates. But if people refuse to engage in asynchronous discussions on LinkedIn, it’s unlikely they’d agree to a live debate where accountability would be even higher.
Still, these important issues need to be discussed. A one-sided video or article lacks the tension and dynamism of a real conversation.
It’s the conversation that reveals the complexity of the topic—how ideas interact, conflict, and (sometimes) evolve.
That’s when I stumbled across the idea of virtual debates: using technology to simulate both sides of a discussion, faithfully capturing the real arguments people have posted online.
Thought Leadership in the Age of Noise
I believe that virtual debates are the future of true thought leadership—especially in today’s world, dominated by social media.
We live in an era where a huge amount of noise drowns out meaningful dialogue. Messages are thrown into the marketplace without any regard for veracity—often little more than sales pitches, one-sided narratives, or fluff designed to obscure real knowledge that already exists.
Much of what is posted today is crafted not to educate, but to steer potential customers away from better, more truthful alternatives they might otherwise discover.
This is not only misleading—it’s corrosive. It devalues authentic expertise and undermines the progress of industries that rely on real solutions.
Virtual debates are a way to cut through that noise—bringing back critical examination, honest disagreement, and tested knowledge into the public conversation.
Leveraging New Technology
Today’s advances in AI and “talking head” animation technology make it possible to stage these virtual debates credibly. Yes, some literal-minded viewers may struggle at first to engage with AI-driven visuals instead of “real” faces.
To them, I say: Focus on the content—the arguments, the evidence, the thought process.
When you go to the cinema, you don’t think, “I’m just looking at light projected onto a wall.” You follow the story, the characters, the emotions, the unfolding ideas.
In the same way, virtual debates invite you to follow the substance, not get stuck on the medium.
Maybe it will take time. Perhaps, just as cinema was a strange idea a century ago, virtual debates will need time to become accepted.
But the need for better discussions—structured, honest, and technically sound—is immediate.
Conclusion
Virtual debates offer a way to confront misinformation without being silenced by those unwilling to engage.
They can preserve the back-and-forth that is vital for real learning and leadership.
They can ensure that flawed arguments do not quietly harden into false “truths.”
That’s why I’m investing in this idea.
That’s why I believe it matters.
And that’s why true thought leadership—in an age of endless noise—demands this evolution.
Add comment