"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
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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