This idea stems from a recent article I read about global warming in which Bob Lutz (big car guy formerly of GM, Chrysler, Ford, and BMW) insists that it’s a bunch of garbage and a scientist named Neil deGrasse Tyson tells him he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
But Bob Lutz is not the only guy that insists it’s hokey, and Neil Tyson is not the only one saying it’s not. From what I can tell, the argument largely falls upon party lines with conservatives saying it’s junk and liberals saying it’s not. How are the moderates supposed to make up their minds?
So today’s idea is this: a site that covers all the major topics of controversy with opinions from both (all?) sides of the issue represented. The rules are:
- You have to use your real identity to participate
- Recognized experts in the field can post opinion pieces to represent the different viewpoints on the issue (limited to 2 pages, so you really have to distill your content to the bare bones)
- Constructive comments are allowed on all primary opinions to encourage dialog
- Neutral moderators summarize the opinion pieces from the different sides
- Participants can choose a side to support and only then can they vote on the best arguments & supporting facts for that side (you can’t downvote the opposition)
- Issues are presented in a simple format with the summaries from all sides visible up front and you can dive into individual arguments from there
Those who have not yet formed their opinions now have a resource of information where they can go and read the best arguments from each side and make up their own minds. It’s like a political kaleidoscope. Single issue in focus and you can see all the different facets. Maybe a diamond or gemstone would be a better analogy, but I really like this kaleidoscope picture.