Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Altair: what we doing here
Tethys: free college
Iapetus: Which question are we addressing?
Jupiter: Good call on free college
Tethys: green deal
Blackeye: Immigration reform
Hoags Object: Say your plan of how we could discuss an issue that divides us without misrepresenting either side.
Barefield: free college is a good one, gotta be more specific tho w/ the "who's gonna pay for it"
Tethys: well that is part of the debate. Those in favor would have to show how they pay for it
Vizima: "Say your plan of how we could discuss an issue that divides us without misrepresenting either side" – how about we walk through what actually happens in class. (1) professor takes a stance on a topic and no other stance is brought forward (2) student introduces other stance (3) professor assesses whether the stance has merit [even at the lowest level] (4) professor does random assignment and gives people time to discuss the mertis of each arguement (5) students return and do oral arguements
Altair: heck why stop there. Free everything
Barefield: maybe we all pop contentious topics in here, then professor picks one, and then picks 2 random people to argue each side / debate style, in class, and the non-debaters then vote on who they thought won the debate
Procyon A: Regarding the idea that people should provide anonymous opinions and then argue them to each other - hypothetically, if the technology existed, wouldn’t it be superior to have a version of Zoom that masks our voices and visual identities and we converse that way? Why would it be better to do it face to face representing others if the only reason we don’t represent our own ideas is people are not comfortable doing so openly? I feel like if we represented each other, then we wouldn’t have as good follow up responses to really explain the ideas. Like does a non-trump supporter really understand the appeal of trump in a way that they will be able to accurately articulate it?
Jupiter: Barefield I agree
Dagobah: I wish I lived in 13th century Romania
Rigel: third trimester abortion
Barefield: Also, MAYBE just MAYBE have non-debaters try to decide if they thought the person arguing it actually believed the stance he/she took AND IF that debater changed their own mind in the course of the debate
Procyon A: Also Nesson should not be asking us for help with the Threads project, which he knows we all don't agree with, during a time at which he is grading us... that's putting some pressure on us to do things we don't necessarily agree in
Asuras: Abolition of jury trial in civil cases by constitutional amendment
Hosnian Prime: I don't think it makes sense to have other students vote on who "won" the debate. I feel like the point is to engage and learn from each other, not pick a winner
Hosnian Prime: maybe a good topic would be admissibility rules for certain types of hearsay? Something related to evidence instead of a political topic. I think people could have conflicting views, say on the Crawford rule
Altair: immigration
Jupiter: Barefield disagree with the latest comment
Jupiter: Also disagree on the voting part
Iapetus: What if we voted on whether or not we agreed with the original proposition (by secret ballot) and we were assigned to argue the opposite point? Having to put yourself in the shoes of someone you disagree with is 1) good for lawyering, and 2) good for practicing empathy within a class.
Iapetus: I guess if everybody knew the person argued disagreed it would ruin the point
Procyon A: What if we explicitly tried, at least once, to just be fully honest about our views face to face? (with that being a very explicit goal) And then afterward, we admit on Threads whether or not we were honest. That could identify whether or not we even need to do this other stuff.
Procyon A: Also, if the goal here is to facilitate an environment of truth, would this whole system we are proposing do the opposite by stigmatizing certain views as requiring anonymity? Like we're reinforcing the idea in people's heads that you can't be an open Trump supporter by doing this whole exercise
Altair: well tbh you can't be a trump supporter in this schoo
Barefield: Its possible to be a Trump supporter, but to make a logically consistent argument for supporting trump necessarily involves support for points of view that are morally reprehensible per the value systems of many students. Therefore, it seems most of the Trump support at HLS is hypocritical or intellectually dishonest at best. I'd love to see some honest Trump support here, some people who come from wealth or privilege and benefit from the status quo saying "America got great with us in power, lets not mess that up" - then we could at least have a policy argument on the merits
Altair: lol that is just plain ridiculous
Altair: You can be a trump supporter and not agree with everything he says.