I'm about to get the ball rolling on a new debate show that I'll be putting up on Youtube. The idea is that instead of just taking turns banging away at their own arguments for a few minutes at a time we want people to actually listen to one another and try find out what the real core of their disagreement is.
For example, if you disagree with someone about the effectiveness or appropriateness of welfare, you don't just disagree on welfare, it's a symptom of a larger disagreement. Maybe you disagree on poverty statistics, or have philosophical differences in terms of what people ought to be able to expect from their communities. That's what we're looking for here. Guests shouldn't be aiming to convince anyone of their positions, they should be aiming to illuminate their positions so an opportunity arises to examine the true difference in thought.
So if you're capable of having a polite conversation with someone you disagree with and can record video, shoot me an email at WhyNotDebates@gmail.com. We're also still coming up with topics, so if you can think of something somewhat controversial that you'd like to see addressed, post something here! Let's brainstorm!
We'll also be doing a podcast related to the same sort of ideas. So if you don't have a camera it's possible you could be a guest in a debate on that. Both will be on Youtube and the podcast will also be wherever it is that podcasts go.
Sorry if #askhubski isn't quite the right hashtag for this!
This sounds like a neat idea. I will follow the #whynot tag and look forward to seeing your first production. Good luck and enjoy the process!
Sexy Violence in Media: Glorifying Death and Shaming Life (Discussion on increasingly violent scenes in movies/games while censoring sex/nudity) Heartificial Intelligence: Giving Life to Machines (Discussion on AI, the implications of and whether or not they would be functionally alive if true AI were ever "invented" or whatever word you want to use for it) Right to Bear Bare Arms (Segment 1: gun control. Segment 2: public nudity) Shoot for the Moon (NASA/private corporation funding and present/future mission goals. Speculative look into colonizing the moon/other planets. Possible national/private military outposts and what that could mean for us on Earth) Black and Blue (Police discrimination against non-whites. Follow-up segment Blue in the Face for discussion on generalized police practices) I Spy (National security vs individual privacy) On the Hunt (poaching and potential solutions. Think violent/nonviolent encounters with poachers or dismantling the market) Big Box Bullies (how big box retailers like Wal-Mart could be effectively dismantled, or their control on the market curbed) Monastic/Scholastic (can religion and schools find a way to mesh? Should kids be taught about varying religions? Should religious schools teach about more worldly views?) Gotta break. These are my amazing ideas. Hope your show goes well! Edit - Formatting Also, need a moderator? :)
I was just yesterday thinking: Everyone (in America at least) keeps mentioning having a "national conversation about X". Why don't we have an actual organization that hosts public debates that's free for everyone to watch (on TV or wherever)? Each side would have one person that most people on that side would feel comfortable represent them - a good debater, and someone that holds views that most people on that side agree with. There would be a moderator that is good at moderating - asking relevant questions, keeping the debate within the intended scope, etc. My idea is definitely different than yours though - in particular, mine would do a terrible job of getting people to actually listen to one another, and would actually probably be more polarizing and yours bringing people together through understanding (if it works out nearly as well as you hope). I'll definitely look into this when it comes out.
You might be interested in Scott Adams' "Rationality Engine", which is a similar sort of idea for actually making good debates, just in text rather than as a video. Basically, two opposing parties put forward arguments, the community tries to find good sources for and against each argument, and then there is an attempt at a conclusion.
I don't have much formal debate experience or anything, but I'd be more than willing to discuss some issues on a podcast-style thing. This sounds like a pretty great idea. Best of luck!
I'd be very interested, it sounds like a great idea.