Current Debates format
So ideally it would be two users, one issue. this whole thing came about as an idea about an actual debate in a thread(Fox to Beck: Maybe You Should Cut Back On the Gold a Little?) so im gonna use that as an exmaple
Topic: Glenn Beck Episode XX
Position 1: Ihatethemall- backing glenn beck and the points he makes on his show
Position 2: deliatheartist- trying to discredit some of the points made by beck.
Moderator: the most neutral possible person.
the actual debate would be in the thread below and information about the debated topic, in this case the episode, would be above. the two people debating would be known beforehand and would have an agreed upon amount of time to reaserch
n the thread below only the two users would be commenting, and there would be some kind of time-line, a couple of days, until commenting is closed.
personally i would like to debate the swiss minaret ban and i could see that working out the same way.
Topic:Swiss minaret ban
Position 1: xxxxxx- arguing for the ban
Position 2: goodname- arguing against.
Im not sure, is this a good idea? could this work with other topics? on one hand i could totally see this becoming something really cool and intresting, on the other...eh not so sure. I would appreciate as much feedback as possible about this. thanks.
-
- groups:
- Current Debates
-
-
crob80227
-
The problem is that Current already is set up that way (for the most part). When someone posts a story about the Swiss Banning Minarets everyone weighs in with their positions in the comments section. Granted it's not a formalized debate between ONLY 2 pre-selected participants, but then again that's the strength of the current format. Everyone can weigh in and participate in real-time.
Obviously there is no harm in adding a section wherein just two people have a more formal debate...but technically speaking I don't know how that would be a significant improvement over the current system where everyone can weigh in in real-time.
A better format (imho) would be a Skype debate between two (or four or six! Imagine 6 people with a moderator all having 3mins to make points and counter-points?) people all having a robust round table discussion in real time and then adding that recorded conference call as a podcast to Current so that we ALL can hear the debate and weigh in on the points made in the comment section.
Otherwise it's just takeing the current setup and reducing it to only two participants...which in and of itself doesn't seem like that much of an improvement.
I don't know. What do you think? I challenge you to a one-on-one debate!
(just kidding!)
- 2 years ago
-
crob80227
-
-
olddogdaddy
-
it is indeed a new world! the old media should be swept away until it's inate talent for 'yellow journalism' and hate mongering can be re-trained to provide factual, objective, and all encompassing reports that follow through on a 'story', [from the people's perspectives].
let the people speak. it gves us hope that our voices can be heard by our bungling bureaucrats. special interest lobbying, [buying government approvals for pro business agendas at the expense of our people and planet], is an attack on our every liberty.
anyone else tired of corporate advertising shows that offer no real news. anyone tired of being fed oppurtunities to pre-judge everyone and everything presented to us with little or no factual content?
united we stand! [if we can keep media, lobbyists, and two party 'representatives' of our industrial military machine from dividing us ever more]?
go current! can you help us to create a multi - party government representation?
- 2 years ago
-
olddogdaddy
