I am more curious as to how Opposing Views chooses/rates its experts. I think an exhaustive qualification of the experts might alleviate some anxiety.

“but the public don’t have time to sit and read all the evidence at hand. They don’t have time to find the overwhelming scientific consensus for something. We rely on the media to tell us what the generally held consensus is.”

Is this how you make medical decisions for your family? It isn’t how I decided which vaccines, if any, to give my children.

“How on earth is anyone supposed to make a decision when the most ardent supporters on each side will be able to argue ad infinitum?”

I’m curious how they will solve this one as well. The biggest problem I have when trying to learn anything on the internet is sifting through all the noise.

I have been reading the earlier comments, but it seems pretty intuitive to me to navigate. Maybe it is because I can actually read.

To the naysayers, never underestimate the power of an intellectual’s desire to share knowledge and engage in challenging and stimulating debate.

Our immortality comes in the form of positive ripples across history. The opportunity to create such ripples is often hard, if not impossible to resist.

@Lewisham and @mark appear to be unwitting users of the democratic fallacy: if enough officially credentialed-ordained scientists concur about something, than it *must* be true and not worthy of debate.

I’m hopeful this website will vet consensus-held memes: some are probably true, some probably aren’t true.

Is global warming truly a “crisis?” Are there not hundreds of benefits from global warming (more arable land, warmer beaches)? Perhaps the costs outweigh the benefits, but let’s not jump to that conclusion, let’s debate it…enter opposingviews.com

I have a bad feeling that the people who will actually read fully through these debates are going to be the ones who have an educated opinion already, and those who need to see a well laid out debate about these issues are going to just get bored by the wall of text.

Someone needs to figure out a way of simplifying these debates without losing their ability to provide point and counter-point, so that the major-news-network-watching crowd will actually give it a read.

If this was a soapbox column site, then that would be fine. However, Opposing Views is positioned as a site of debate, where the real truth will be argued out. You and I both know that whoever shouts loud enough will win. No-one owns the view point, like an Op-Ed column. At least Bill O’Reilly gives us that. You’re saying that the public will find the truth here, and they won’t.

Shouting loudly is why Intelligent Design is doing so well. The media is scared of appearing unbalanced with respect to the debate, but I can assure you there is not one actual scientist who refers to the Theory of Evolution as Darwinism. The ID campaign has managed to latch onto the fears and beliefs of real people, and market aggressively to spread the message. The news media has failed the public there.

Opposing Views, as you have said, goes one step further and completely removes itself from any sort of editorial authority. The winner is the one that cites the most “evidence”. How on earth is anyone supposed to make a decision when the most ardent supporters on each side will be able to argue ad infinitum?

You’re saying you’re trying to help educate the public, but you’re making the current sickness with the American news media worse.

will a lawyer gives you free legal advice? accountant? to unknowns?

Agree, good concept, but thaz all

Check out http://www.CreateDebate.com for an example of a debate site startup really trying to harness the wisdom of crowds.

I wuold like to comment on the issue mentioned above regarding the equal weight problem. We absolutely do our best to launch debates on items that the public is thinking about. You might not believe that a large population of the public is still wondering if global warming is a crisis, but in fact they do. And we can’t be the people to decide who is right and wrong… as a neutral platform we need to bring in representative views of both sides. If one of them has lesser evidence or credibility it is the job of the experts on the other side and the debate format to flush that out — that’s why they are there.

Thanks again for your comments and feedback. We are doing our best and will continue to improve our platform.

Russell Fine
CEO
Opposing Views Inc.

I think it’s different than tv because it isn’t time-boxed and soundbite driven. For example, on this debate (http://www.oppo...omes-worthwhile) the nasa guy demolishes the hudson institute fellow. On t.v. this would turn into two people talking over one another, but I was wholly convinced by the details from Dr Schoppers.

This isn’t like anything I would have heard on a “here’s both sides” tv show.