Choose a simple topic on which two opposed points of view might reasonably be debated. Allocate, say, ten minutes to each opponent, or whatever seems a reasonable amount of time given the topic, then let them debate the topic.
Imagine how this will unfold. The set up preserves the sense of an entertaining adversarial contest and ensures it is decided purely by the opponents' powers of persuasion. Some of the frustrating behaviour seen in recent television debates would be discouraged. Each opponent would be likely to cede control before they use up their time because they need to retain an opportunity for rebuttal of points made by their opponent. It would be interesting to see how they end up managing their time.
- The first rule of mike club is you talk about mike club.
- The second rule of mike club is you talk about mike club.
It seems to me this system would be useful just now as we discuss the pros and cons of Scottish Independence. Rather than debate that as a single issue using this format, I would break it down into a number of debates on related topics such as
- Social justice
- The future of the NHS
- The removal of Trident
- Environmental issues and climate change
- Energy policy and renewables
- Foreign affairs and the European Union
- The oil industry
- Currency
In general, a useful variant might have three polling options, to include undecideds, polled using a traffic light system of red, amber and green. This would allow badly posed topics involving, for example, imponderables, straw men, and false dichotomies, to be trapped as a win for the undecideds.
No comments:
Post a Comment