> a pro vs anti union debate with a corporate executive on one side and an organizer on the other would be informative and entertaining, and is uniquely suited to your medium.

IMHO, those are the last people that I want to read. Both sides would present the same talking points we see every where. There'd be a lack of meaningful engagement as these people hold little nuance in their positions. Or, at least, the positions they're willing to present in public. It's just each side hitting the notes to fire up their base.

[EDIT]

This article about Israel/Palestine is an even better example:

https://www.pairagraph.com/dialogue/8c47026d6af148588f3ad8f4...

There's little to be gianed by reading that unless you want to know the two extremes to the point of view.

[/EDIT]

As an example, take this one about breaking up big tech:

https://www.pairagraph.com/dialogue/ff5d6b5332124e59b081c5a5...

One side wrote "Break ‘Em Up: Recovering Our Freedom from Big Ag, Big Tech, and Big Money (2020)". The other side is wrote "Antitrust Law, which is the most-cited antitrust authority in the country". Predictably, the first is pretty bombastic and mostly preaching to their choir. The second is more nuanced and less definitive.

I think you’re right that you’d hear a lot of trite arguments you’d heard before in that pairing. I do think it would be worthwhile for one reason: it illustrates that politics are about deciding who gets what, not about some objective “correct” solution.

You’d have the boss on one side, who would lose money and productivity with a union, and an organizer on the other, who stands to gain benefits and stability. That is an interesting pairing _because_ it is directly about what each side wants.

It’s exactly what you don’t get in traditional media, where it’s mostly disingenuous hemming and hawing by opinion columnists. I’m showing my biases here, but I think the reason you don’t hear politics talked about in “who gets what” terms is because those in power benefit from obscuring material realities.

Couldn't agree more.

We're proud of what we've built with Pairagraph v1, but the conversations are definitely limited by two things: (1) who is involved, and (2) the format: 2 authors, 4 installments, each 500 words, A-B-A-B.

I floated this idea in response to a different comment, but what if we allowed readers to vote on who they'd like to hear from in the future? Or what if we tweaked the format to allow more than 2 authors to participate in a conversation?

I think both of those are interesting suggestions worth trying!

About the audience voting thing, personally I think a curated list of speakers is okay, and isn’t necessarily going to be any more biased than audience voting. I would just prefer that list is curated in a way that is 1) transparent in it’s biases and 2) represents my side a little better (selfish preference).

I know I already mentioned this, but be sure to widen your criteria for what makes someone an expert. I haven’t done an exhaustive search, but I don’t see many artists, teachers, union members, organizers, members of the working class, local politicians, etc. in your list, even though they often have more direct expertise related to these topics than an opinion columnist does.

We'll be sure to make this a top priority. We mean it when we say we're committed to including as many people (and perspectives) as possible, but there is always room for improvement so thank you for bringing this to our attention. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have suggestions for artists, teachers, union members, organizers, members of the working class, local politicians, etc. that you'd like to see on Pairagraph. We would be thrilled to get them involved!

I think it's worth exploring having two primary sides to the conversation, but each side should be able to have multiple nuanced takes, such as in https://alternativeenergy.procon.org/questions/should-nuclea...