Example Debate
Example Debate — Gun Control
(See also: Example Debate — Climate Change)
Imagine that the Decision Website is fully up and running. We just announced the new topic of Gun Control. Below is a simplistic example of how that debate might progress various steps.
Thousands of applicants have been received to participate in the debate, and three hundred have been randomly chosen using a simple questionnaire about available time, general beliefs on the topic, and special qualifications. It’s a relatively diverse group, but this is just the start of who will participate.
Goals
The 300 participants get logged into their dashboards and begin the initial work to state the goals and the problems to overcome. It’s not an agreement per say, but the main objectives surface.
The general public, watching from without, submitted the Arms Industry aspect. The group senses the breadth of the subject and the needed experience and calls for additional participants with interests in the above objectives. 200 more are selected by the original 300, making the total 500.
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
Brainstorming
The brainstorming phase has come and participants submit an array of issues and concepts.
Mass shootings, domestic violence, suicide, school shootings, workplace shootings, murder-for-hire, armed crimes, gangs, organized crime, government tyranny, civil war, national invasion, gun collection, shooting sports and competition, shooting recreation, home/business/personal protection, wildlife management, gun safety, gun safety classes, trigger locks, hunting, public carry, public display, BB and pellet guns, automatic weapons, assault weapons, military grade weapons, semi-automatic weapons, alternate types of guns, 3D printed arms, clip size, ammunition, illegal arms dealing, international arms dealing, age requirements, felony restrictions, background checks; government tracking, constitutional right, arms manufacturers, arms retailers, gun dealers, secondary sales, purchasing procedures, federal/state/local laws, red flag laws, ownership responsibility, children access, mental health, law enforcement, stolen weapons.
The public has weighed in with few extra entries and we feel like it’s a good start.
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
Subtopics
From the brainstorming procedure, our next step is to decide how to divide our debate into subtopics and which subtopics can be grouped together. Subtopics will be debated separately, and each have its own collection of concluding “position statements.”
A few of the subtopics are not controversial and merely need a general discourse to result in a solid definition. These include gun collection, shooting sports and competition, and wildlife management. More participants are sought with experience or expertise in these areas.
on the initial step to assign each subtopic with definitions and general discussions about how that issue relates to the bigger discussion. It’s an orienting task. When we realized there is a “no gun” camp, only the wildlife management subtopic remains not controversial.
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
Thinking about Opinion Camps
We decide to collect data from our participants as to what types of overall opinions and solutions we will encounter in the debate. It’s a spectrum ranging from making guns illegal and confiscating existing weapons to lifting all restrictions. Surprisingly, there are a lot of perspectives in between with the general public adding even more combinations.
The decision is made for every “opinion camp” to write a draft “position statement” that briefly describes the solution they envision.
Camps realize that they will need to participate in each subtopic, and so seek additional recruits if their numbers are insufficient.
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
↑ TOP
Debate Style Decision
The group decides on the initial step to assign each subtopic with definitions and general discussions about how that issue relates to the bigger discussion. It’s an orienting task. When we realized there is a “no gun” camp, only the wildlife management subtopic remains not controversial.
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
Team Organization
At any turn an “opinion camp” can recruit more members that have certain expertise. The new members can assist in the varying topics, perform research, and help with other tasks. The number of participants in our example swells to over a thousand.
Each “opinion camp” is equipped with organization tools to assign member roles and tasks and plan their strategy as a collaborative team. To support their argument, they compile lists for needed statistics, relevant studies, white papers, and a glossary of terms. Remarkably, all of this activity can be watched by the general public, underscoring our dedication to transparency. While credentials, background , and expertise of participants are visible for task assignments, camps use a pseudo user-name structure for team members in order combat credential bias in the debate.
At this stage, the entire body of participants has agreed to debate together in each subtopic. Simultaneously, every camp, as well as independent individuals, will write an evolving “position statement” for each subtopic to allow participants to understand each camp’s perspective. Additionally, each camp will maintain their overarching “position statement” for the larger topic of gun control.
Gun Control is ripe for a people’s debate!
Camps now organize their team with roles, assigning people to different subtopics and varying tasks. People with good writing skills are assigned to that task for each subtopic and the position statements. Researchers are asked to seek out studies, facts, and statistics that are needed to go in the Reference section of the Decision Website. Those people are also involved in critiquing other reference entries to state how accurate a document is, and what it does and does not prove.
For more on the Reference Section
Other members will watch the discourse and ask for clarity, proofs, and definitions as well as challenge any submissions for logic and accuracy problems. We have folks that respond to challenges on our submissions as well. We have managers watching our camp progress and those assigned to interact with the general public on our position.
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
↑ TOP
Subtopic Debate
The subtopic debates are messy at first when camps make vigorous efforts to defend their point of view. Various threads discuss elements within the subtopics. Discourse settles down as each side realizes the objective of making their perspective clear as well as understanding the other camps’ approach. The challenges by every camp encourages a refinement of thinking as well as explanation. It’s a hard-nosed debate done in a civil fashion. “Position Statements” are being progressively tweaked to reflect the debate.
As the subtopic debates wind down, gun safety has found broad support. Requiring biometric trigger locks on all new sales as well as free locks for existing guns seems to be popular in spite of the cost. Trigger locks go a long way to prevent accidents, restrict access for children, allow families to restrict access at stressful times, deter theft, protect gun collections, and improves everyone’s feelings about home defense.
Balance to government tyranny has made a strong case, but assault weapons and even automatic weapons haven’t been shown to stand up to government’s military capability. The local armory idea is being suggested as a compromise. Tyranny appears to be the only viable roadblock for removal of assault weapons, large magazines, and bump stocks.
Open the door to new ideas and we’ll be surprised!
The mass shooting discussion, including schools and workplaces, did not take long to come together in recognizing the grievous tragedy and its place as the top priority. Much time was spent analyzing the individual cases against which gun control measures would have prevented the incident. Trigger locks and school metal detectors were seen as mitigating ideas.
The debate on school surveillance moved toward consensus when it shifted to entry points rather than full school coverage. In most subtopics the cost factors are seen as surmountable with a public resolve to fix our problems. A separate subtopic was created to address costs, talking about the real effect of the national debt and its relationship to taxes.
Mental health and suicide discussions show support for waiting periods on all guns and are working on an exception for immediate hunting purchases. Other ideas, including for domestic violence, are the ability to voluntarily give up control of your trigger-locked guns to a 3rd party such as a spouse or family member.
The debate on background checks is contentious, especially as concerns the secondary market. Government tracking is so absolute when every gun transfer is registered. A method for a gun seller to make an anonymous background check is in discussion. Possible compromise leverage is seen in limiting background check denials from all felonies to just violent crimes and restraining orders.
Red Flag Laws are hotly debated. One possible alternative being discussed is allowing citizens to put a warning on other people’s record causing a temporary denial of gun purchase through a background check. Situations such as a restraining order, domestic disputes, mental health, and suicidal tendencies come into play.
The gun industry debate has been relatively rude with very little concern for sales and profits.
Are the people really concerned about
corporations making money on weapons?
Efforts to tackle crime issues are focusing on implementing harsher penalties for using guns in illegal activities. Stiffer penalties are also being sought for straw purchases, control of armor-piercing ammunition, carrying of unlocked guns, and possession by a convicted violent criminal.
Open carry has minimal support, but more consideration is given to conceal carry. Statistics showing when conceal carry was deemed useful as a deterrent is a stumbling block for proponents, but there is backing in some conditions. Much of the current debate is over when and where to require trigger locks when guns are outside the home.
Hunting, sporting, gun ranges, and even recreational plinking haven’t got much pushback. Ideas of accessible gun safety classes are popular and there’s even talk of government subsidies for classes.
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
↑ TOP
Position Statements for Subtopics
Camps are in the process of finalizing their “Position Statements” for each subtopic within the realm of gun control. This process entails addressing various challenges to ensure that each camp articulates any potential drawbacks to their position
Some camps share the same opinion on a subtopic although they differ in their solution to the entire gun control topic. These camps may opt to merge their positions to amplify support and garner more votes for their shared stance.
Once the “position statements” for each subtopic are completed, the general public will have the opportunity to vote for their preferred stance. Interested individuals can sign up for notifications to stay informed. However, it’s worth noting that the level of public participation is a concern as it could be susceptible to manipulation through organized group efforts. Consequently, these votes are primarily utilized as unconfirmed polling data by participants in continuing debates.
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
↑ TOP
Final “Position Statements”
The entire group decides on a different approach for the closing push towards a conclusion. Rather than debate together, camps are tasked to compile their final position in their most complete and compelling rationale.
Once again camps will challenge each other to publically state limiting factors and negative consequences. No opinion gets to remain isolated and buffered from critique.
Indeed, this is the time to examine presentations from other camps to identify common ground. By merging their concepts, camps can craft proposals that resonate with a broader audience, because this vote… matters. The push for public involvement is to create a national opinion. Consensus now has teeth. Compromise makes sense.
Ranked voting is used for the general public. They state a first, second, and third choice with appropriate values assigned. In addition, the top two choices enter a runoff.
The National Opinion
It’s all over. The votes are in. Our national opinion reflects the best solution that human logic presently envisions.
And the winner is…
↑ TOP
Example Debate — Climate Change
There are plenty of national topics that are ripe for debate. Immigration, gun control, police reform, economics, UBI, etc. Let’s look at Climate Change as a well-rounded challenge. It’s critically important and has lots of interconnected components. It also may show how the citizenry can come together.
Participants
We need experts for this discussion on Climate Change, and we need to discover how experts might differ. Our experts need to come from a broad spectrum of disciplines. A climate scientist is not a biologist, not a social psychologist, not an economist, and so forth.
Plus, we will need participants from every opinion camp, socio economic level, and culture. We are all in this together and we will be directing society on a course that calls for democratic input.
While selection of participants may heavily utilize credentials, the debate will decide if those credentials will be made public. An opinion from a PhD is not a guarantee of accuracy. Opinions require proof and logic if they are going to be trusted by the public. Shortcuts, as in “trust me I have a doctorate in biology,” will not work. It won’t be easy for the credentialed folks, especially as to using language the majority of us understand, but they are building an explanation of our world, not for the scientist community but for the citizenry. Good news… ask an AI chatbot to “rewrite my words at a tenth grade level.” So easy.
Effects of climate change could be catastrophic.
Don’t you want a voice in our response?
↑ TOP
Tackle the Evidence
For this debate, the group of participants first chooses to tackle all of the evidence of climate change. The scientific community has already done good work in this area. They publish papers and use a peer review system. But it’s not sufficient. It lacks an organized method to debate opposing views. Also the citizenry has not been given clear layman information. We don’t know which authors to trust, nor do we have the time to read extensive books. Excerpts in the media have the potential for spin. The Decision Website needs to overcome this.
Climate Change is so ripe for a people’s debate!
We can start by letting participants submit studies, white papers, statistics, and even longer written articles. These will all go into a reference section of the debate. The next step will be to allow a critique of these references. Examples might be who funded the study, conflicting data, and nuances that should be considered when interpreting the study.
For more on the Reference Section
Once the reference material is in place, our real debate on the evidence can take place. Climate change can be broken down into smaller subtopics or categories of topics, each with its own conclusions. Our goal is to come together about what’s really happening on our planet and apply some priority as to which changes are the most important.
The end result will be a series of “position statement” as to the evidence of climate change. Viewpoints here should be quite similar, given the nature of scientific studies and statistics. Yet, it’s a time to ensure the public that all perspectives are included.
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
↑ TOP
Progression of the Plant Warming
How does the evidence of climate change progress and interconnect? What are the projected consequences and how does it snowball? What should we expect in the weather and effects on the planet?
The group has decided to tackle this aspect apart from the evidence as it includes more forecasts and predictions. The ending “positions statements” will have added variety.
Causes of Climate Change
The full range of causes needs to be discussed and understood. For instance, how focused should we be on greenhouse gases, and what part could be natural climate shifting? If the scientific community is right, this task should be easy. But the people have a right to be sure. The good news is the experts will have their AI “arrogance” filter turned on. We’re tired of being called ignorant.
We again start by submitting more studies, white papers, and statistics into our reference section. Text from books and longer written articles can be submitted as reference. These will all have a rigorous debate of their own, discussing who funded the study, distinguishing data from resulting theory, and nuances that should be considered when interpreting the study.
For more on the Reference Section
Now we can begin the debate on causes. We will start to realize that verbiage of “believing science” is just media and political rhetoric. Scientific studies, theories, and interpretation all have factors with varying degrees of reliability. Everyone is interested in what’s provable, logical, and probable. The good news is that with effort we can sort this all out to come to a better agreement and even unity.
Next we can break the topics apart into manageable parcels. What are all of the causes and how important is each one?
We will use “Position Statements” to summarize each “causal” subtopic. Again, with the work that has been done across the globe by scientists, the views should be similar. We are fine-tuning our opinions.
Decisions to mitigate climate change are
bigger than the scientific community!
↑ TOP
Our Solutions
What can we do to mitigate global warming? How do we prepare and fund our response to climate disasters. What is our societal will and how does that fit globally?
A section of this debate will still require scientific experts. What effect will reducing methane gas have compared to solar installation on homes? Should power plants shift to nuclear energy or hydrogen or solar and wind? What’s our best option and what are the drawbacks of each? Is the trend of electric vehicles our hero? What new technologies and methodologies should we count on to store carbon dioxide? How does consumerism come into play?
That discussion will guide us on the next two sections about how to manage climate disaster and how do we make the necessary changes. This part of the discussion, the solution, will not be easy.
How can we be ready when the planet reacts to climate change? Do we agree on our humanitarian approach? Will insurance need to be nationalized? Will we have to view monetary policy (see MMT) in a new light to treat the national debt as inconsequential? Is this the right time to reevaluate society in a new mindset?
What can we do when faced with an entrenched economy that cannot change unless profits are clear? What is the political will of both politicians and the citizenry? We need to prioritize our course of actions, and we need to overcome the bias of special interests.
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
↑ TOP
Final “Position Statements”
The group has decided that the usual final “position statements” are not enough. Instead, those statements will be a broad direction and a way of thinking about climate change. The people will vote accordingly.
In addition, topics of humanitarianism and how to pay our way will each have separate “position statements.” Other topics will be treated separately as well. How do we respond to effected citizens? How do we coordinate on a global scale? How do we proceed economically and politically? We will vote on our top solutions for each.
Then, each course of action to reduce carbon levels will be summarized and prioritized. The people will vote on which measures they are committed to.
Voting
The people will decide on a national opinion. We will look at probabilities and choose a direction. We will have the choice to work together on solutions. The Decision Website becomes a tool for acting as well as our source of information.
Action
Power can be a dangerous thing. Power in the hands of the full citizenry, rather than the government or individuals or groups, offers the most balanced and responsible approach. The Decision Website emerges as a unique tool capable of empowering citizens with significant influence in the world. It is the sole method that sweeping constitutional changes can be made in a secure fashion. It is the only way that far-reaching systemic changes can be tackled. Moreover, the Decision Website is so very possible.
So now we have discussed the issue of climate change and have ideas that we could pursue. But what can we accomplish?
As citizens, we can install solar panels on our roofs and buy electric cars. Let’s be real, we’re not likely to switch from a meat to a plant diet. People can change their purchasing habits and spend less on consumer items since everything we buy has to be produced with manufactured materials and energy. It would be good for us to see how advertising is shaping our view of a successful and happy life. But that’s about it. Is that enough?
Businesses cannot easily make significant changes to help climate change. The priority of profit is built into their corporate charter. Their hands are tied. That’s simply the way our system works. If you are the sole owner of a business, then you can do whatever you want. But your company will be swimming dangerously upstream in the face of our economy’s competitive nature and the fact that publically traded companies are glued to the profit motive.
Government is the only one who can change the rules for business. The fossil fuel industry may need radical and immediate change. What politician has that kind of resolve? We know how interconnected politicians are with business. Politicians control the laws while business provides the reelection funds. Still, we might be surprised. Elected officials could strengthen their backbones with ethical fortitude. The people have been waiting for that for… millennia.
Politicians are heavily influenced by business.
↑ TOP
So are drastic measures are needed? Can we the people use our voice from the Decision Website? We definitely can when we invigorate our democracy via constitutional changes? Our thinking will awaken when we form our own democratically controlled media. But what can we do in the shorter term?
We can elect politicians based on our renewed thinking, and not the rhetoric from the parties and media. We take back the psychology of voting and question who we are listening to. We ask for action and not promises. We elect a new wave of representatives that vows to follow the people’s opinions.
Our new found common ground can also give citizens a power over business. Citizens could throw their consumer money towards companies that make big environmental moves. Our purchasing power will ensure that volume profits for these companies will go up. This power is not to be dismissed. We could also affect any company just by stating our discontent with their environmental direction. Their stock prices will plummet the next day, and their board of directors will take the hit.
What if citizens rallied together to support
businesses that reduce carbon output?
This is real power and not to be taken lightly. We do not want to ruin any business, but we do want change. And this power will cause business to follow our lead. If fact, our involvement could be just the element business needs to help them get over their impasse on profits.
We have to be unified, but that’s what the Decision Website is all about. Let’s do this.
So maybe next we debate…
↑ TOP
