Comments on: You decide

You decide

jragon — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:54:59 -0800

You decide is a webpage that walks you through both sides of an issue. Interesting and well done way of not only seeing where you stand but appreciating the other side of the debate.

By: tr33hggr

tr33hggr — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:00:23 -0800

Cool. My composition student will benefit from this as well.

By: tr33hggr

tr33hggr — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:00:46 -0800

students

By: ao4047

ao4047 — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:27:02 -0800

Great link! I keep clicking through both paths on either side of an issue... great exercise.

By: stonerose

stonerose — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:37:23 -0800

This sucks. But on the other hand... ;-)

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:38:12 -0800

It's interesting--but the one i'm doing is not at all persuasive--on single-payer universal health care (I clicked yes). It's going on about bureaucracy, and higher taxes, and medicare's problems and how 3rd-party payment systems are ripe for abuse (we have that now with managed care and hmos anyway). If you believe that the 40whatever million of us without health insurance should have it and that losing a job shouldn't mean losing affordable healthcare, then the added cost (debatable) and bureaucracy (so what?) and the unaccountability that may occur (already happening with current systems) are not at all persuasive, I find. I can't appreciate an argument that doesn't take into account the people adversely affected by the current system/status quo--especially one that doesn't offer constructive options or alternatives to that status quo. Clicking no gives you arguments that can be rebutted just as easily as i could rebut the ones given for yes.

By: Satapher

Satapher — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:39:49 -0800

because everyone knows theres only two sides to every story. RIGHT AND WRONG.

By: Gyan

Gyan — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:41:07 -0800

What amberglow said. Just go through the 'Legalize pot?' activity, starting with Yes. They simply present you with the opposite argument, irrespective of its soundness.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:42:58 -0800

and framing the arguments as "What if you knew that many Americans believe..." is meaningless, and seems to be encouraging a kind of "what? you don't think as others do?" thing.

By: loquax

loquax — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:55:54 -0800

Woooooooooo! Satapher! 3 for 3!

By: catfood

catfood — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:56:45 -0800

I enjoyed it, if only to find that at the end, most people agree with me on every issue I "decided" on. They simply present you with the opposite argument, irrespective of its soundness. Yeah I noticed that too, but it reminds me of a lot of people I know who actually believe in these opposite arguments.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:59:39 -0800

I also agree with amberglow -- the arguments presented on either side are for the most part so unsound that one is tempted to keep disagreeing with them. I wonder if presenting both sides at once would have been better...

By: shepd

shepd — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:00:09 -0800

Wait. Ins't KQED dying and crappy? I'm confused.

By: majcher

majcher — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:05:05 -0800

My good friend Mel writes these. She doesn't make up the questions, she just does the research, and presents the cases for the arguments on each side. Coming up with both sides of a given issue can be a tremendous pain in the ass, so sometimes the arguments can sound a bit... well, really, you try to come up with the "Yes" arguments for "Is the Bush Administration doing enough to protect the environment?" Overall, though, great stuff.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:06:57 -0800

Wait. Ins't KQED dying and crappy? Well, shepd, we'll help you decide. What if you knew that many Americans believe KQED actually isn't dying and crappy at all? ; >

By: rafter

rafter — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:28:13 -0800

Definitely an interesting concept, but ditto on some of the arguments. For same-sex marriage it poses arguments like, "Did you know some people believe that heterosexual marriage offers society benefits same-sex marriage can not?" "Did you know that some religions forbid homosexuality?" and "Did you know some people don't believe same-sex couples can raise children healthily?" Then again, I'm not sure that I've ever heard anything better coming from that camp, so maybe that's the best they could come up with.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:40:33 -0800

Should Saddam Hussein be executed? I'd like to answer that question after the trial, if there is one, and if he's convicted.

By: dg

dg — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 21:55:30 -0800

The concept here is quite neat - forcing you to reconsider your answer several times before committing to it. The knowledge that it is just a script providing pre-made statements based on your answer takes the shine off somewhat, though. If there was a bit more complexity there, perhaps having to give some choices as to why you keep answering the same way or why you changed from your previous answer, it would be more convincing. Programming it and writing the responses for the myriad possibilities would be a nightmare, though.

By: raaka

raaka — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:38:31 -0800

Shouldn't there be an "I could care less" option, where they try to convince you that you actually need to come up with an opinion on every possible political question?

By: salmacis

salmacis — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:22:30 -0800

well, really, you try to come up with the "Yes" arguments for "Is the Bush Administration doing enough to protect the environment?" I'm sure the resident right-wingers here can come up with something half-convincing.

By: cell

cell — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 02:43:29 -0800

Haha.. Oh wow, the resident right-wingers. Well, it would have been a cheaper site to make, anyway.. "Is the Bush Administration doing enough to protect the environment?" [No] "Did you know Clinton was as bad, or worse?" [No] "Michael Moore makes stuff up!" [No] "Kerry voted to invade Iraq too!!" [Still no] "Bleeding-heart commie hippie liberal moron!!" ... (repeat for all questions)

By: Keyser Soze

Keyser Soze — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 04:38:27 -0800

Great site, I had a good laugh when I read this rebuttal regarding socialized health care: "Probably the first country to have universal health care provided by the government was the Soviet Union," wrote Thomas Sowell in Townhall.com. "After decades of socialized medicine, what was the end result? In its last years, the Soviet Union was one of the few countries in the world with a declining life span and a rising rate of infant mortality." -Huh?! The Soviet Union collapsed, the medicare loss was directly affected by this, making the argument null. (Not the entire argument, just this portion) Michael Moore exaggerated, but didn't lie.

By: Keyser Soze

Keyser Soze — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 04:38:43 -0800

Oh wow I cant speel

By: majcher

majcher — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:05:25 -0800

Comment from the metafilter-less You Decide author: "The purpose of You Decide isn't to MAKE the soundest arguments on each side, but to REPORT what's being said in the various media. There are people out there with big mouths and mindless followers (for example, the conservatives who write for townhall.com, etc.) that are forming the opinion of the average American. We know that most people don't think for themselves. Zero critical thinking skills. So You Decide is really made to 1) be a round-up of the opinions being bandied about and 2) show people that taking a complex issue and asking a yes or no question is really beside the point."

By: jennyb

jennyb — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:42:00 -0800

We talk a lot here on Metafilter about how insular both "sides" are getting, so I think this is a good way to know what the people on the other side of an issue might think and why they might think that way. Maybe there is an argument on the other side of an issue that you didn't know was there that might change your position, or at least make you examine your position more. Or maybe it's just a good tool for honing your own position on an issue for future debate. Dumb example: Did you know some people don't believe same-sex couples can raise children healthily? Hmmm... no I did not know this was a problem for those who oppose same-sex marriage. I will now find some facts to back up my claim that this is not true, so the next time I'm discussing this issue with some one who does not think the way I do, I can make a cogent argument for my position. Anything that tries to wiggle us around in our established stance on a number of issues is good, I think.

By: SpaceCadet

SpaceCadet — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:23:04 -0800

students Yes or No?

By: calwatch

calwatch — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:36:39 -0800

Wait. Ins't KQED dying and crappy? KQED is dying and crappy. The fact that they have to hire someone in Texas to make the arguments for them is proof. Don't they know of any good conservatives in the Bay Area to make the right's point of view?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:43:45 -0800

We talk a lot here on Metafilter about how insular both "sides" are getting, so I think this is a good way to know what the people on the other side of an issue might think and why they might think that way. Maybe there is an argument on the other side of an issue that you didn't know was there that might change your position, or at least make you examine your position more. Or maybe it's just a good tool for honing your own position on an issue for future debate. But we know what the people on the other side of issues are saying..they get airtime too, and coverage in the newspapers. All hot-button issues (which this mostly is made up of) are endlessly talking-headed on tv, with a person from one side and a person from the other. How does this (or anything, really) get past that? It seems to just reinforce it.

By: majcher

majcher — Sat, 01 May 2004 21:35:55 -0800

KQED is dying and crappy. The fact that they have to hire someone in Texas to make the arguments for them is proof. Actually, they hired her when she was living in San Francisco, and she writes both sides. So, not so conservative. However, even if your wild speculation were accurate, I don't see how it would be relevant.

By: calwatch

calwatch — Sun, 02 May 2004 13:04:29 -0800

How can you not see that it could be relevant? Even she admits that the conservative arguments are kind of "phoned in" from the usual suspects like Town Hall and the Cato Institute. Apparently, KQED doesn't realize that instead of having someone moderate write both sides, they should have a partisan write each side. Q.E.D. (not what KQED is doing)