This Public Matters on Guns is another excellent example of how to present an important issue that allows people to hear all sides. C.R. Douglas does not bring his opinions, but forces the panel to defend theirs in real life applications that don't always fit their positions they espouse. This Socratic method more importantly forces the viewer to question his/her position as the situation changes and does not fit our previously held opinion on how the matter should be resolved.
I found myself agreeing with parts of the viewpoint i normally oppose, at least understanding how they came to their position and that it was not black and white. I also found myself frustrated that the person I tended to agree with could not allow himself to accept the hypothetical situation presented, passing it off as a fantasy scenario. As we used to be told in law school, "don't fight the hypo", deal with it.
Overall, this is a terrific method Douglass uses to raise the difficulty these issues present. So much more interesting and useful than the usual point/counterpoint method where the usual proponents and opponents stake out their positions and talk past each other. No wonder people don't partake in civic dialog, there just isn't any search for a common ground we can agree to accept and make policy that advances us beyond the log jam we currently have.
We need more of the KCTS. Keep it up!
More information about formatting options