- Share This Post
- submit
- 4
-
Sparkle (0)
When I was a geeky teenager back in the early 1970s, one of my favorite television shows was a short-lived PBS series called The Advocates, in which well-informed, but ideologically opposed debaters argued over the issues of the day. That was back when people could disagree without impugning each other's patriotism, intelligence or character.
Today's public debates are so shrill, and so frequently lacking in substance, that I have often wished for a contemporary version of that show. I've found it - an NPR series called Intelligence Squared, where two opposing teams of knowledgable people debate an issue in front of a live, voting audience, using Oxford-style rules.
To understand what's so great about Intelligence Squared, let me compare it to the Advocates. Susan Kubany, a former publicist for that show, has a great description:
I was in love: Alan Dershowitz was the liberal advocate, William Rusher the conservative, and Michael Dukakis, the moderator. The debated topics were important, engaging and the drama, unique. (No liberal bias here. This was television at its finest…)
That was the same Michael Dukakis who later became Governor of Massachussetts and the failed Democratic presidential candidate in 1988, of course. There were guest Advocates too, ranging from crafty old Sen. Sam Ervin to civil rights leader Bayard Rustin and actor Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.
Here's what I liked about the show. I learned, both about issues and about how to argue for your position. These days, being factual and informative seems to have taken a back seat to scoring cheap points. For example, Blogher CE Erin Kotecki Vest pointed out this evening that former Bush administration staffer Mary Matalin, appearing on CNN with her husband and TV sparring partner, James Carville, fallaciously claimed that Pres. GW Bush inherited a recession and the 9/11 terrorist attacks from the Clinton administration:
That kind of silliness makes me grateful for a show like Intelligence Squared. The format of each episode will be familiar to anyone who has been on a school forensics team. There is a proposition, such as "Obama's Economic Policies Are Working Effectively." There are two teams of three persons each, and a moderator. At the outset, Each person makes an opening statement for or against the proposition, alternating between teams. There are opportunities for each side to question the others, and rebuttals, and then closing statements. The audience votes on the proposition twice - before the debate begins, and at the end. The team that has changed the most minds wins.
Here's what I like about it:
1. The team members have to make their points concisely in order to accommodate the debate's strict time limits.
2. The debaters know what they are talking about, and they often discharge their task with style and grace. They can also keep each other honest.
3. The topics run the gamut -- from whether diplomacy has any chance of success in Iran to whether the art market is less ethical than Wall Street.
Both of these qualities were on display during this episode: Good Riddance to Mainstream Media:
Good Riddance to Mainstream Media from Intelligence Squared US on Vimeo.
Of course, BlogHer is no stranger to civil debate. We've found ways to disagree on the most contentious issues and, for the most part, still manage to maintain a respectiable dialogue. These twin posts on the issue of abortion from 2008 are stellar examples (Why I'm Pro-Life, by BlogHer CE Rocksinmydryer and Why I'm Pro-Choice by BlogHer CE Maria Niles). Of course, much of the credit for this success comes from management decisions to put community guidelines in place designed to preserve civil discourse.
Intelligence Squared's Oxvford debate format is a great model that I hope will gain wider traction. As I looked for blog posts about, though, it seems to be a well-kept secret. So, check it out and let me know what you think!
Related:
- Rattner vs. Spitzer: A Battle Royal over the US response to the financial crisis
- Intelligence Squared US debate blames Washington more than Wall Street for the Financial crisis
