How Newsvine Views the Issues

There are a number of issues discussed and debated over between the different political ideologies and when the air smells of election these issues become hot topics. Even though awhile away, the 2008 election already has filled the air with anticipation. It seems that it is never too early to begin campaigning.

These issues are an integral part on how we judge both politicians and the parties they represent. These issues are what call the partisans out to war. Abortion, for instance, draws very strong public attention and support. A race for election can be won or lost based on the stance a politician holds and even how strongly they support that opinion.

So in the spirit of getting smarter I wanted to learn more about all the issues and the different opposing opinions within each one. These things can be found by reading the debates and discussions in the comments on related articles; however, I find that this does not make for a good reference - there is simply too much noise. What I want is the issues and the different opinions on the issues neatly packaged in a clear, easy to read form.

Better yet, I would love to have the different opinions cleaned up and defined as best as possible. While it is easy to explain a position generally, it is much more educational to clarify a point a view. To achieve this I would need some sort of forum which was limited to clarifying arguments.

Introducing… IssueVine.

Now I know the name isn't very original but stick with me for a moment. The idea behind it is simple – for each issue I will put up two (or more if needed) articles. Each will contain the same overview of the issue, written by me, which will include background information, relevant links, etc. Each article will also be 'supporting' a point of view on the issue. Going with the abortion issue again, there would be two articles: one for abortion, one against abortion.

Now in the comments section there will be strict regulation. The comments will be limited to identifying and clarifying the support for the stance represented in the article. Supporters of the stance will post why they agree with that particular ideology. Those who disagree with the stance have a role too. They will ask the supporters to clarify on points in their arguments.

For example, if the article is of the abortion issue, specifically against abortion. If a supporter writes the argument that "abortion is an attack on life," some who disagree might feel inclined to point out the possible infringement on the rights of the woman. However, please refrain from arguing with the supporters – the person who disagrees could ask "how much control should a person have over their body."

While the support is identified and clarified, Viners will vote for the strongest arguments. If you don't understand the logic a person uses to form an argument, don't vote for their comment but ask them to clarify. If you believe that their clarification is a strong argument, vote for it. This part of the debate isn't about which side is right, it is about finding the strongest arguments on each side of the issue.

One way to look at it is we want to break down the arguments made by each side into smaller and more specific parts until all that is left is a normative argument. Once it becomes pure opinion we have found the true talking points.

After the two (or more) sides of the argument have been defined in their articles, I will write up a concluding article showing the most popular/strongest arguments on all sides of the fence. This is where we will be able to discuss the results and continue debate.

I'm not sure how this will work and I'm open to discussion on how to improve the idea. If you have issues you would want to see covered let me know.

--

[*] This is article #002 in Jon Nagelmakers' quest to win the Last Viner Standing competition in April, 2007. His other articles in this series can be found here.